[Cite as State v. Damico,
2025-Ohio-4968.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MIAMI COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 2025-CA-18
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2022 CRB 00536
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
WILLIAM E. DAMICO :
: FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
Appellant : OPINION
:
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on October 31, 2025, this appeal is
dismissed as moot.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
RONALD C. LEWIS, JUDGE
TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
OPINION
MIAMI C.A. No. 2025-CA-18
CHRIS BECK, Attorney for Appellant
LENEÉ BROSH, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant William E. Damico appeals from a judgment of the Miami
County Municipal Court that sentenced him to consecutive jail sentences after he violated
the terms and conditions of probation. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal as
moot.
I. Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On February 22, 2022, Troy Police Officer Preston Hinger filed two complaints
in the Miami Count Municipal Court alleging that Damico had committed identity fraud, a
first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2913.49, and misuse of a credit card, a first-
degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2913.21. In a supplemental narrative, Officer
Hinger explained that the victim’s debit card, phone charger, and identification card were
stolen from his car on February 18, 2022. The next day, the victim noticed that there were
two $60 transactions on his credit card from the Budget Inn and multiple charges from Door
Dash, a food delivery service. Officer Hinger went to the Budget Inn and discovered
Damico in the room that was rented with the victim’s credit card. After receiving a positive
identification by the hotel manager and confirmation from police dispatch that Damico had
two outstanding warrants, Officer Hinger arrested Damico and took him into custody.
Damico pleaded not guilty to the charges.
{¶ 3} On April 7, 2022, Damico changed his pleas to guilty, and the trial court found
him guilty as charged. After a pre-sentence investigation was ordered, the trial court
2
sentenced Damico to 180-day jail sentences on each of the two counts and ordered the
sentences be served consecutively to each other. The trial court credited Damico with
57 days of jail-time credit and suspended the remaining 123 days of the 180-day jail
sentence on count one. The court also suspended all 180 days of the sentence on count
two. The court placed Damico on two years of community control sanctions.
{¶ 4} Damico was served with a probation violation notice on November 15, 2022.
The notice stated that he had violated condition numbers six and seven by failing to complete
a program and by testing positive for methamphetamines. The probation officer
recommended that the court set the dispositional hearing out for 60 days.
{¶ 5} On December 9, 2022, a probation violation arraignment was held. Damico
stated that he had received a copy of the probation violation notice and admitted the
violations. The trial court accepted Damico’s admission and found that he had violated the
terms and conditions of his probation. The court stated that it would continue Damico on
the same terms and conditions of probation that were previously imposed and delay the
dispositional hearing for 60 days to see how Damico progressed.
{¶ 6} Damico failed to appear for the February 2023 dispositional hearing. Damico
was arrested and attended a May 8, 2023 probation violation arraignment. Damico’s
counsel apologized for Damico missing the February dispositional hearing and explained to
the court that Damico had Covid-19 at that time. Damico’s counsel stated that Damico was
not on probation anywhere else and requested that the dispositional hearing be rescheduled.
{¶ 7} On May 26, 2023, the court held a probation violation dispositional hearing.
The court imposed a 30-day jail sentence and credited Damico with time served. The court
also returned Damico to probation.
3
{¶ 8} On August 9, 2023, the trial court issued a bench warrant for an alleged
probation violation. According to the court’s warrant, Damico had absconded or otherwise
violated the terms of probation and ordered that the time Damico was absent from the
jurisdiction of the court shall not apply against the community control sanction period.
{¶ 9} On October 4, 2023, Damico was served with a probation violation notice in
which he was accused of violating conditions 6 and 17 of his community control by failing to
complete a program, failing to report to his scheduled office appointment, and absconding
from probation. At the probation violation arraignment, Damico admitted that he had
received a copy of the probation violation notice and had violated the terms of his community
control. The trial court accepted his admission and found that he had violated the terms of
his community control. The court imposed 180 days in jail and a term of probation following
service of the 180 days. The court gave him credit for any jail time previously served.
{¶ 10} On November 20, 2023, Damico filed a motion to mitigate in which he asked
that the remainder of his jail time be mitigated. The court found that Damico was serving a
probation violation sanction and overruled his motion to mitigate.
{¶ 11} On December 28, 2023, the trial court suspended the remainder of Damico’s
jail sentence and released him to a representative of Emerge Recovery on January 4, 2024,
for inpatient treatment. The order stated that if Damico failed to successfully complete
treatment, he shall be considered in violation of his probation. The court also stated that
Damico shall be placed on five years of probation from his original sentencing date on the
following conditions: successful completion of inpatient treatment and any other terms and
conditions deemed appropriate by probation.
{¶ 12} On January 28, 2025, Damico was served with a probation violation notice in
which he was accused of violating condition numbers 6, 7, 13, and 17 of his community
4
control. These violations included failing to report to the probation officer, testing positive
for methamphetamine, failing to provide verification of completing mental health treatment,
and failing to report for an office appointment.
{¶ 13} On January 28, 2025, Damico appeared at a probation violation hearing and
admitted to the four alleged violations of his community control. The trial court accepted
his admission and terminated Damico’s probation unsuccessfully. The court reimposed the
original 180-day consecutive sentences and gave Damico credit for the 183 days he
previously served in jail.
{¶ 14} Damico filed a notice of appeal from the January 28, 2025 order. On
March 25, 2025, this court concluded that the trial court had not entered a final order on
January 28, 2025. Therefore, we dismissed Damico’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
{¶ 15} On April 11, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment in which it found Damico
guilty of violations of the terms and conditions of his probation and terminated him from
probation unsuccessfully. The court re-imposed Damico’s original 180-day jail sentences
and ran them consecutively to each other.
{¶ 16} Damico filed a timely notice of appeal from the April 11, 2025 judgment and
the parties filed their appellate briefs. Given the amount of time that passed between the
date Damico began serving his jail sentence and the date on which the appellate briefing
was concluded in this appeal, this court became concerned that Damico’s sole issue raised
on appeal may be moot. On September 12, 2025, this court issued an order to show cause
why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. The parties were given 14 days to file a
response to our order. Neither party filed a response.
5
II. Damico’s Appeal Is Moot
{¶ 17} Damico’s assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY REVOKING APPELLANT’S PROBATION
AND IMPOSING THE SUSPENDED SENTENCE WHEN THE PROBATION
HAD BEEN TERMINATED, THUS DIVESTING THE TRIAL COURT OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
{¶ 18} Damico contends that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to
impose further jail time when it conducted the January 28, 2025 revocation hearing.
Damico asks this court to reverse the revocation of his probation and imposition of his jail
sentence. We cannot do so under the particular facts of this appeal.
{¶ 19} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue judgments
that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 2018-Ohio-24, ¶ 9, citing Fortner v.
Thomas,
22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 (1970). “Issues are moot when they lack practical
significance and, instead, present academic or hypothetical questions.” Dibert v.
Carpenter,
2018-Ohio-1054, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.), citing State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 2016-
Ohio-3529, ¶ 55. Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of a moot appeal.
State v. Smith,
2019-Ohio-3592, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). “[A]n appellate court may consider evidence
outside the record in order to dismiss an appeal as moot.” Townsend v. Antioch Univ.,
2009-Ohio-2552, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.), citing Pewitt v. Lorain Correctional Inst.,
64 Ohio St.3d 470
(1992).
{¶ 20} Appeals of misdemeanor convictions are considered moot if the defendant has
voluntarily satisfied his sentence, unless the defendant has offered evidence from which an
inference can be drawn that he will suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights
stemming from that conviction. State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236 (1975), syllabus.
6
A defendant can show that he did not serve a sentence voluntarily if the defendant sought a
stay of the sentence in the trial court to allow for the appeal. Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 2011-
Ohio-2673, ¶ 23 (“Thus, a misdemeanant who . . . seeks a stay of execution of sentence
from the trial court for the purpose of preventing an intended appeal from being declared
moot . . . objectively demonstrates that the sentence is not being served voluntarily, because
no intent is shown to acquiesce in the judgment or to intentionally abandon the right of
appeal.”).
{¶ 21} “A collateral disability is an adverse legal consequence of a conviction or
judgment that survives despite the court’s sentence having been satisfied or served.” In re
S.J.K., 2007-Ohio-2621, ¶ 10, citing Pollard v. United States,
352 U.S. 354 (1957). “‘[A]
purely hypothetical statement about what might occur in the future is not sufficient to give
viability to an otherwise moot appeal.’” State v. Moore,
2005-Ohio-4518, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.),
quoting State v. Johnson,
43 Ohio App.3d 1, 3 (1st Dist. 1988).
{¶ 22} According to the Miami County Jail records, Damico was booked into jail on
January 28, 2025, and released from jail on July 24, 2025. These dates establish that
Damico completely served the remaining 177 days of his jail sentences. There is no
evidence in the record that Damico has suffered any collateral disability, and he does not
argue that he has suffered any. Further, Damico did not request a stay of his sentence in
the trial court. Damico’s assignment of error asks us to reverse the trial court’s order that
required him to serve the remainder of his jail sentences. Since he has completely served
his jail sentences, there is no meaningful relief that we could grant him on appeal.
Therefore, the sole issue Damico raises on appeal is moot and we must dismiss his appeal.
7
III. Conclusion
{¶ 23} Having concluded the issue raised by Damico is moot, we dismiss the appeal.
.............
TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
8
