[Cite as State v. Battigaglia, 2021-Ohio-2758.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs-
Case Nos. 2020CA00157 and
ROMERO A. BATTIGAGLIA 2020CA00158
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Canton Municipal
Court, Case Nos. 209CRB04467 and
2009TRC07560
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 10, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KRISTEN BATES AYLWARD ROMERO BATTIGAGLIA
CANTON LAW DIRECTOR PRO SE
JASON P. REESE LONDON CORR. INSTITUTION
CANTON CITY PROSECUTOR 1580 State Route 56 SW
SETH A. MARCUM London, Ohio 43140
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR
218 Cleveland Avenue, SW
Canton, Ohio 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00157 and 2020CA00158 2
Wise, John, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Romero A. Battigaglia, appeals the decision of the Canton
Municipal Court, which denied Appellant’s Motion to Vacate Costs and Fines. The
Appellee is the State of Ohio. The following facts give rise to this appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On July 21, 2020, Appellant filed Motions to Vacate Costs and Fines to lift
the court’s arrest warrant for case numbers 2009 TRC 07560 and 2009 CRB 04667.
{¶3} On September 8, 2020, the trial court denied Appellant’s Motions to Vacate
Costs and Fines.
{¶4} On November 5, 2020, Appellant filed Notices of Appeal for both cases.
{¶5} On March 22, 2021, the cases were ordered consolidated by the trial court.
{¶6} On April 30, 2021, the trial court reduced the fines and costs to a civil
judgment, and the bench warrant was cancelled.
{¶7} On May 3, 2021, Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss with this Court.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶8} In Appellant’s November 5, 2020, appeal, Appellant raises the following
Assignment of Error:
{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO VACATE COST AND FINES WITHOUT FIRST
DETERMINING IF THE AMOUNT OWING TO THE COURT IS DUE AND
UNCOLLECTABLE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART.”
Stark County, Case Nos. 2020CA00157 and 2020CA00158 3
ANALYSIS.
{¶10} Appellee raises the issue that this Court does not have jurisdiction to
consider Appellant’s Assignment of Error because it is moot based on the costs and fines
being reduced to a civil judgment and the bench warrant being cancelled. We agree.
{¶11} “Mootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court ‘is not empowered
to decide moot questions or abstract propositions.’ ” State v. Feister, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas
No. 2018 AP 01 0005, 2018-Ohio-2336, ¶28 quoting United States v. Alaska S.S. Co.,
253 U.S. 113, 116, 40 S.Ct. 448, 449, 64 L.E. 808 (1920), quoting California v. San Pablo
& Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. 876, 878, 37 L.Ed. 747 (1893); Accord,
North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971).
{¶12} Ohio courts have long exercised judicial restraint in cases that are not actual
controversies. Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d 371, 372 (1970). No
actual controversy exists where a case has been rendered moot by an outside event. “It
is not the duty of the court to answer moot questions, and when, pending proceedings in
error in this court, an event occurs without the fault of either party, which renders it
impossible for the court to grant any relief, it will dismiss the petition in error.” Miner v.
Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21 (1910), syllabus; Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.3d
131, 133, 566 N.E.2d 655 (1991).
Stark County, Case Nos. 2020CA00157 and 2020CA00158 4
{¶13} The trial court reduced all costs and fines to a civil judgment and cancelled
Appellant’s bench warrant providing Appellant with relief which he sought. Because the
relief sought by Appellant has already been obtained, we find this appeal to be moot.
{¶14} For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as moot.
By: Wise, John, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.
JWW/br 0809