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 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Johnson

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 756
• Docket Number: 30496

• Judges: Huffman

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Appellant has already served the jail sentence imposed by the judgment on appeal, so his appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2026-Ohio-756.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 30496
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2024 CR 01793
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
CHADWICK JOHNSON : Court)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on March 6, 2026, the appeal is

dismissed.

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,

MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE

LEWIS, P.J., and TUCKER, J., concur.
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30496

AARON M. HERZIG and NATHAN R. COYNE, Attorneys for Appellant
MICHAEL P. ALLEN, Attorney for Appellee

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Chadwick Johnson appeals from a judgment entry revoking community control

sanctions. For the following reasons, this appeal is dismissed as moot.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On August 28, 2024, Johnson was charged by way of a bill of information with

two counts of violation of a protection order and one count of criminal trespass. He pled

guilty to the offenses on September 11, 2024. Disposition occurred on May 8, 2025, and the

court sentenced Johnson to community control sanctions for a period not to exceed five

years. A post-conviction no contact order was issued preventing contact with K.J., the

subject of the protection order, who was Johnson’s estranged wife and the mother of his

children.

{¶ 3} On October 15, 2024, Johnson filed a motion to modify conditions of the no

contact order as outlined in a consent agreement between him and K.J. in the domestic

relations court. He sought limited communication with K.J. by means of the “Our Family

Wizard” application to facilitate parenting time. On November 4, 2024, the court issued a

notice of hearing regarding modification of terms and conditions of community control

supervision, noting that the State of Michigan, where Johnson resided, denied interstate

compact supervision.

{¶ 4} At the subsequent hearing on November 12, 2024, the court granted Johnson’s

request to use “Our Family Wizard” to communicate with K.J. regarding issues of visitation

2
with the children. The court imposed monitored time supervision consistent with the

interstate rules and regulations for interstate supervision of offenders, with Johnson

additionally consenting to continued counseling for anger management, to a substance

abuse assessment and completion of any recommendations therefrom, and to report in

person to probation when in Ohio for court proceedings or visitation. The court advised

Johnson that a violation of the restrictions to which he agreed could result in a revocation of

his community control sanctions, and that a failure to abide by the no-contact order as

modified, with the exception of court hearings, could result in criminal charges. A

modification of community control sanctions was issued on November 20, 2024.

{¶ 5} On December 17, 2024, a notice of community control sanctions revocation

hearing and order was issued, stating that Johnson was arrested by the Centerville Police

Department for domestic violence and menacing on December 15, 2024. An amended

notice of revocation was filed against Johnson on March 5, 2025, based on his arrest. It

stated that on March 3, 2025, Johnson was charged with three counts of aggravated

menacing and three counts of domestic violence threats in Dayton Municipal Court. It alleged

that Johnson violated Rule 1, which required him to obey local, state, and federal laws and

to immediately contact his probation officer if arrested or contacted by law enforcement, and

Sanction 2, which required full compliance with the no contact order while also only using

the “Our Family Wizard” application for purposes of visitation and custody.

{¶ 6} After multiple continuances, a revocation hearing occurred on May 8, 2025. At

the start thereof, the court indicated it had been advised that after a trial in Dayton Municipal

Court, Johnson was convicted of three counts of aggravated menacing and one count of

domestic violence threats. Counsel for Johnson conceded that the convictions established

that Johnson violated his monitored time supervision. The court indicated that it reviewed

3
victim impact statements from K.J. and the children. The court imposed jail terms of 180

days for each protection order violation and 30 days for criminal trespass, to be served

concurrently with each other for an aggregate term of 180 days. The court ordered the

sentence to be served consecutively to the term imposed in municipal court. Johnson

received 122 days of jail time credit.

{¶ 7} Johnson timely appealed from the trial court’s judgment. During the pendency

of the appeal, this court overruled motions filed by Johnson to consolidate the instant appeal

with his appeal from the municipal court case and to stay briefing of this appeal pending

resolution of the municipal court matter.

Assignment of Error and Analysis

{¶ 8} Johnson asserts one assignment of error. He argues that the court erred “by

finding a community control violation.” Johnson’s argument is based solely on his belief that

his conviction in municipal court, which served as the basis for his revocation, will be

reversed.

{¶ 9} Even if his municipal court conviction were reversed, simple arithmetic

establishes that Johnson has been released from jail after the expiration of his aggregate

sentence of 180 days in this matter and his sentence in Dayton Municipal Court. Johnson’s

companion appeal before us reflects that on April 14, 2025, he was sentenced to 180 days

on one count of aggravated menacing, with credit for 123 days and 57 days to be served at

the jail; 180 days on a second count of aggravated menacing, with credit for 64 days and

116 days suspended; and 30 days for domestic violence threats, with credit for 64 days. He

was also sentenced to two years of non-reporting community control. Here he received 122

days of jail time credit towards his 180 aggregate jail term, leaving 58 days to serve upon

4
the completion of the sentence in his municipal court case. Put differently, Johnson was

released from jail in August 2025.

{¶ 10} “‘A case becomes moot when something happens that makes it impossible for

the court to grant the requested relief.’” State v. Vaughan, 2023-Ohio-2330, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.),

quoting State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, 2020-Ohio-1253, ¶ 5. Johnson asks

us to reverse the finding that he violated community control. Our “function under

App.R. 12(A) is to affirm, reverse or modify judgments, not findings.” Id. Counsel for Johnson

admitted the violation, and the only aspect of the judgment on appeal at issue was the

imposition of a jail term, which has been served. Under these circumstances, Johnson’s

appeal is moot, and it is dismissed.

.............

LEWIS, P.J., and TUCKER, J., concur.

5