Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Wright

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 962
• Docket Number: L-25-00102, L-25-00103

• Judges: Osowik

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Per Osowik, J., Appeal is dismissed. The merits of appellant's assignments cannot be addressed because the completion of his prison sentence sanction renders his appeal moot.

Combined Opinion

                        by [Thomas J. Osowik](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8121/thomas-j-osowik/)

[Cite as State v. Wright, 2026-Ohio-962.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No.L-25-00102,
L-25-00103
Appellee
Trial Court No. CR0202401981,
v. CR0202402298

Todd Wright DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: March 20, 2026

---

Julia R. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney, and
Lorrie J . Rendle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Patricia Horner, for appellant.

---

OSOWIK, J.
Procedural History

{¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal of two separate cases from the Lucas County

Court of Common Pleas.

{¶ 2} In case No. CR 24-2298, appellant, Todd Wright, was charged with

trafficking in cocaine, a violation of R.C. 2925.03, a third -degree felony (Count 1),

possession of cocaine, a violation of R.C. 2925.l l(A)(C)(4)(c) a third-degree felony
(Count 2) and driving under suspension, a violation of R.C. 4510.l l(A)and(D)(F) and

(G) a first-degree misdemeanor (Count 3).

{¶ 3} In case No. CR 2024-1981, he was charged with Count 1 trafficking in

cocaine, violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(4)(b) a fourth-degree felony,

Count 2 possession of cocaine a violation of 2925.11, a fourth-degree felony, and

assault, Count 3, a fourth-degree felony and a violation of R.C.

2903.13(A)(C)(l)(C)(5)(a).

{¶ 4} On October 2, 2024, appellant was before a Lucas County Common Pleas

Court judge for a fugitive warrant from the State of Georgia. Appellant was taken into

custody and remained detained until he was sentenced on the two criminal felony cases.

{¶ 5} Ultimately, on February 11, 2025 in case No. CR 24-2298 , appellant plead

to a lesser included offense of trafficking in cocaine, a fourth-degree felony, Count 1,

and a violation of 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(4(c). Wright was sentenced on February 27,

2025, to 12 months in prison, the remaining 2 counts were dismissed.

{¶ 6} On February 11, 2025, for case No. CR24-1981 appellant plead no contest

to count 2, possession of cocaine, a violation of R.C. 2925.1 l(A) and (C)(4)(a) a felony

of the fith degree. He was sentenced also on February 27, 2025, to 6 months at ODRC

and the other 2 counts were dismissed.

2.
{¶ 7} In both cases, appellant filed a “Motion to Correct Jail Time Credit.” On

April 15, 2025, the motions in each case were denied by the trial court. It is from these

judgments that Wright appeals. Those two cases were consolidated by this court.

Assignment of Error

{¶ 8} Wright presents a single assignment of error for our review:

The trial court erred in denying appellant jail time credit.
{¶ 9} More specifically, Wright argues that the trial court committed reversible

error when it denied appellant credit for time he was detained on a fugitive warrant for a

case that arose while appellant was working on resolving the Ohio felony charges and

for which he had posted surety bonds.

Suggestion of Mootness

{¶ 10} On January 14, 2026, the State filed its brief. In that brief, the State

attached an exhibit. That exhibit is ostensibly from the website of the Ohio Department

of Rehabilitation and Corrections. It represents that the appellant herein, Todd L. Wright

was released from incarceration on January 13, 2026. As a result of Wright’s release

from incarceration, the State argues that his appeal is moot.

{¶ 11} Wright did not file a reply brief nor did he file a response to the State's

suggestion of mootness.

Law and Analysis

{¶ 12} We have consistently held that because an appeal concerning jail-time

credit involves the appellant's sentence length, not the underlying conviction, the

3.
appellant suffers no collateral disability or loss of rights that can be addressed by an

appellate court once the sentence has been served. State v. Russell, 2023-Ohio-3547, ¶ 10

(6th Dist.), citing State v. Ambriez, 2005-Ohio-5877, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.). Therefore, although

an offender may seek review of a trial court's refusal to grant jail-time credit by filing an

appeal of the court's judgment, such an appeal is rendered moot once the appellant is

released. State v. Solomon, 2025-Ohio-1378, ¶ 6-9 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 13} Here, Wright did not appeal his judgment of conviction, and his appeal in

the instant case concerns only the issue of whether he was entitled to jail-time credit. As

such, it is now moot, in light of his release.

Conclusion

{¶ 14} For the foregoing reasons, Wright’s appeal of the April 15, 2025 judgment

of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is dismissed. Appellant is ordered to pay

the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. The judgement of the trial court is moot.

Judgment dismissed.

4.
State of Ohio v. Todd Wright
Case Nos.: L-25-00102, L-25-00103
Trial Court Case Nos.: CR0202401981, CR0202402298

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, P.J.
JUDGE

Christine E. Mayle, J.
JUDGE

Myron C. Duhart, J.
CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

5.