State v. Thompson - Theft Appeal Moot Due to Sentence Completion
Summary
The Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal filed by Holly Thompson in a theft case. The court found the appeal moot because Thompson completed her jail-time sanction, rendering the merits of her assignments of error unaddressable. The original indictment was for theft of merchandise valued between $1,000 and $7,500.
What changed
The Ohio Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal of Holly Thompson in case numbers WD-25-008 and WD-25-042. The court determined that Thompson's appeal is moot because she has completed her jail-time sanction, which was imposed following a violation of her community control. Consequently, the court cannot address the merits of her assignments of error.
This ruling means that Thompson's prior conviction for theft, involving Nike merchandise valued at over $1,000 from Kohl's Department Store, will stand without further appellate review on the issues she raised. The appeal stemmed from both the original sentencing and the subsequent imposition of incarceration. Regulated entities involved in criminal appeals should note that the completion of sanctions can render appeals moot, preventing review of the underlying issues.
Source document (simplified)
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.
March 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
State v. Thompson
Ohio Court of Appeals
- Citations: 2026 Ohio 1005
- Docket Number: WD-25-008, WD-25-042
Judges: Osowik
Syllabus
Per Osowik, J., Appeal is dismissed. The merits of appellant's assignments cannot be addressed because the completion of her jail-time sanction renders her appeal moot.
Combined Opinion
by [Thomas J. Osowik](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8121/thomas-j-osowik/)
[Cite as State v. Thompson, 2026-Ohio-1005.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. {87}WD-25-008
{87}WD-25-042
Appellee
Trial Court No. 2024 CR 0344
v.
Holly Thompson DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: March 24, 2026
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Kristofer A. Kristofferson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph Sobecki, for appellant.
OSOWIK, J.
Procedural History
{¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal of both the original sentence and the
imposition of incarceration in the Wood County Jail as a result of a community control
violation from the Court of Common Pleas of Wood County, Ohio.
{¶ 2} On September 19, 2024, appellant was indicted by the Wood County Grand
Jury on one count of Theft, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1), 2913.02(B)(2). The indictment more specifically describes the theft as
various Nike merchandise from Kohl’s Department Store, valued at one thousand dollars
or more and less than seven thousand five hundred dollars.
{¶ 3} On December 19, 2024, Thompson pled guilty to the singular count of the
indictment.
{¶ 4} On February 26, 2025, appellant was sentenced to five years of community
control subject to the general supervision and control of the Wood County Adult
Probation Department, with numerous terms and conditions. Thompson was advised by
the court that violations of any of the sanctions may lead to more restrictive sanctions, a
longer period of community control, or a prison term of six to twelve months.
{¶ 5} On March 28, 2025 Thompson filed an appeal to this court from that
judgment in case No. WD-25-008.
{¶ 6} On June 12, 2025, after having stipulated to a violation of the terms and
conditions of her community control, Thompson was terminated from community control
and was ordered to serve a period of incarceration of twelve months at the Wood County
Jail.
{¶ 7} On July 3, 2025, Thompson filed an appeal to this court from that judgment
in case No. WD-25-0042. Those two cases were consolidated by this court.
2.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} Thompson presents three assignments of error for our review.
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE
STATUTORILY REQUIRED POST-RELEASE CONTROL NOTIFICATIONS AT THE
COMMUNITY CONTROL SENTENCING.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE
STATUTORILY REQUIRED POST-RELEASE CONTROL NOTIFICATIONS AT THE
ORIGINAL SENTENCING HEARING WHERE IT IMPOSED COMMUNITY
CONTROL.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO PROVIDE THE VICTIM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD PRIOR TO SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT FOR
A COMMUNITY CONTROL VIOLATION.
Suggestion of Mootness
{¶ 9} On February 17, 2026, the state filed a Suggestion of Mootness pursuant to
6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 10(I), arguing that the issues raised in Thompson’s assignments of
error were rendered moot because she completed her jail sanction related to her
community control violations on January 25, 2026. Thompson filed a response to the
suggestion on March 2, 2026.
{¶ 10} Because Thompson’s appeal does not challenge her underlying conviction,
she 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 (6th Dist.). Therefore, the merits of
3.
Thompson’s assignments cannot be addressed because the completion of her jail-time
sanction renders her appeal moot. Id. at ¶ 6-9.
Conclusion
{¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, Thompson’s appeal of the judgments of the
Wood County Court of Common Pleas is dismissed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs
of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. The trial court judgment is moot and this appeal is
dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
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.
Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE
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/.
4.
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Ohio Court of Appeals publishes new changes.