State v. Morgan

2022-Ohio-2932 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022) · Ohio First District Court of Appeals · August 24, 2022 · No. C-210509

Summary

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Donald E. Morgan’s misdemeanor conviction for child endangerment under R.C. 2919.22(A). The court held that the appeal was not moot because the conviction could have collateral consequences for Morgan’s parental rights, and it concluded that the evidence was sufficient to show reckless creation of a substantial risk to the child’s health or safety.

Court
Ohio First District Court of Appeals
Writing for the Court
Bock, J.; Myers, P.J.; Winkler, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
August 24, 2022
Docket number
C-210509
Procedural posture
Morgan appealed his misdemeanor conviction for child endangerment, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The State argued that the appeal was moot because the trial court had remitted the remaining sentence.
Standard of review
For sufficiency of the evidence, the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considered whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also required some competent, credible evidence for each element.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
Donald E. Morgan v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

mootnessappellate procedurecriminal procedureevidencestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate procedureevidencechild welfare and parental rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Morgan's appeal was moot after the trial court remitted the balance of his misdemeanor sentence.
  2. Whether sufficient evidence supported Morgan's conviction for child endangerment under R.C. 2919.22(A).

Holdings

  1. The appeal was not moot because Morgan's misdemeanor child-endangerment conviction could create collateral consequences for his parental or custodial rights, and the record showed an existing JFS investigation or custody-related proceeding.
  2. Sufficient evidence supported Morgan's conviction because a rational trier of fact could find that he, while having custody or control of the child, violated a duty of care and protection, recklessly created a substantial risk to the child's health or safety, and acted recklessly.

Key quotations

Under the collateral-consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, an appeal of a misdemeanor conviction is not moot if the defendant can identify “a collateral disability or loss of civil rights” stemming from his conviction. (¶ 9)
Therefore, we overrule his single assignment of error and affirm his conviction. (¶ 24)

Factual background

While Morgan was holding his two-and-a-half-year-old son during a parole visit, a parole officer instructed him to put the child down and place his hands behind his back. Witnesses testified that Morgan threw or launched the child toward the officer; the child struck a kitchen countertop, fell onto a tiled floor, and screamed. Morgan fled without checking on the child, and the child showed no apparent injury when officers returned.

Procedural history

The Hamilton County Municipal Court denied Morgan's Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, found him guilty of child endangerment under R.C. 2919.22(A), and sentenced him to 180 days in jail, with 85 days credited. The court later remitted the balance of the sentence after Morgan received a six-month sentence in a Warren County case. The First District held that the appeal was not moot because the conviction could produce collateral consequences in an existing custody or JFS proceeding, then affirmed the conviction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Ohio First District Court Of Appeals