[Cite as State v. Pierce, 2018-Ohio-2646.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 106217
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ROSUE C. PIERCE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-16-611371-A
BEFORE: Stewart, J., Kilbane, P.J., and Jones, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 5, 2018
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Mark A. Stanton
Cuyahoga County Public Defender
Frank Cavallo
Assistant Public Defender
310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Daniel T. Van
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
MELODY J. STEWART, J.:
{¶1} In 2006, defendant-appellant Rosue C. Pierce pleaded guilty to gross sexual
imposition and carrying a concealed weapon. The court sentenced him to a three-year
community control sanction and classified him as a sexually oriented offender with a duty to
register his address. In August 2016, the state charged Pierce with a failure to register in
violation of R.C. 2950.04(E). Pierce pleaded guilty to the charge and received a one-year term
of community control. After Pierce’s second community control violation, the court revoked
community control and ordered him to serve a nine-month prison term.
{¶2} In this appeal from the revocation of community control, Pierce claims that the court
never issued a final sentence in the 2006 case, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-05-466751-A. He
maintains that the court issued a “blanket” sentence of community control and did not enter a
sentence on each count as required by State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846
N.E.2d 824, where paragraph one of the syllabus states: “A sentence is the sanction or
combination of sanctions imposed for each separate, individual offense.”
{¶3} The trial court record in CR-05-466751-A is not before us, nor has Pierce attempted
to supplement the record in this appeal. We agree with the state that under these circumstances,
taking judicial notice of the docket in CR-05-466751-A in this appeal would violate the rule that
an appellate court may not add to the record on appeal and then decide the case on the basis of
the added material. State v. Hill, 90 Ohio St.3d 571, 573, 2001-Ohio-20, 740 N.E.2d 282.
“Since a reviewing court can only reverse the judgment of a trial court if it finds error in the
proceedings of such court, it follows that a reviewing court should be limited to what transpired
in the trial court as reflected by the record made of the proceedings.” State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio
St.2d 402, 405-406, 377 N.E.2d 500 (1978).
{¶4} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas
court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________________________________
MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR