State v. Stanton
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Stanton, 2004-Ohio-6305.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 84339 STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -VSJEROD STANTON Defendant-Appellant Date of Announcement of Decision: Character of Proceeding: Judgment: : : : JOURNAL ENTRY : : AND : : OPINION : : NOVEMBER 24, 2004 Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-439892 Appeal dismissed. Date of Journalization: Appearances: For Plaintiff-Appellee: WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor PATRICK J. LAVELLE, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: ROBERT L. TOBIK Cuyahoga County Public Defender ROBERT M. INGERSOLL, Assistant Public Defender 100 Lakeside Place 1200 West Third Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.: {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Jerod Stanton ( defendant ) appeals the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal as moot. {¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error defendant challenges his prison sentence as being contrary to law. Defendant pled guilty to trafficking in drugs (count one) and possession of drugs (count three). In February 2004, the trial court ordered defendant to serve a ten-month prison term on count one and a concurrent six- month prison term on count three. On June 21, 2004, the trial court granted defendant placement into a transitional control program. Thus, we decline to address the propriety of the prison sentence imposed by the trial court since it is moot. See State v. Hess, Cuyahoga App. No. 83819, 2004-Ohio-5214, ¶16, citing State v. Blivens (Sept. 30, 1999), Lake App. No. 98-L-189 and State v. Bailey (Nov. 16, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76685. Appeal dismissed as moot. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas 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. ANN DYKE, P.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR. JAMES J. SWEENEY JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. 112, Section 2(A)(1).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
