[Cite as State v. Carnell, 2020-Ohio-3053.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
GREENE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-63
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-989
:
LAWRENCE G. CARNELL : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 22nd day of May, 2020.
...........
MARCY A. VONDERWELL, Atty. Reg. No. 0078311, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
Greene County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 61 Greene Street, Suite 200,
Xenia, Ohio 45385
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
KEARA R. SCHREIBER, Atty. Reg. No. 0096864, 130 West Second Street, Suite 1818,
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
HALL, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Lawrence G. Carnell appeals from his conviction on one count of aggravated
drug possession, a fifth-degree felony. Carnell was charged with aggravated drug
possession in December 2018, and he pled guilty to the charge in May 2019. The matter
proceeded to a dispositional hearing in September 2019. Carnell indicated he did not
want to be screened for drug treatment and wanted to be sent to prison. Under the
relevant statutory provisions, however, he was ineligible for a prison sentence. The trial
court placed him on community control with the sole sanction being a 253-day local jail
sentence.
{¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Carnell contends the trial court erred in
imposing a community control sentence with a condition that he serve 253 days in jail.
Upon our initial review, we noticed that a 253-day jail sentence appeared to be contrary
to law in that R.C. 2929.16(A)(2) limits a community control jail sanction to “a term of up
to six months in a jail.” See State v. Poulter, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28492, 2020-Ohio-
396, ¶ 4. Apparently as a result of the supplemental briefing, Carnell was released from
jail on April 28, 2020. On April 30, 2020, the trial court filed an entry finding that Carnell
had successfully completed his community control, terminating community control, and
ordering the case closed.
{¶ 3} There is no relief we can provide Carnell regarding his challenge to the length
of his now-completed sentence. See, e.g., State v. Edmonds, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
24155, 2011-Ohio-1282, ¶ 10 (“In all cases * * * a defendant’s challenge to his sentence
becomes moot once he has completed it.”).
{¶ 4} Carnell’s argument, which only challenges the jail sentence, is moot. This
case is dismissed.
-3-
.............
DONOVAN, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Marcy A. Vonderwell
Keara R. Schreiber
Hon. Stephen Wolaver