Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court, Trial Court Case No.
MATTHEW KORTJOHN, Atty. Reg. No. 0083743, Assistant City of
Dayton Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
CHARLES M. BLUE, Atty. Reg. No. 0074329, Attorney for
1} Defendant-appellant Damon Smith appeals his
conviction and sentence for violation of a protection order.
For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Facts and Procedural History
2} In mid-2017, Daniel Wolff, a letter carrier for
the United States Postal Service, sought a civil stalking
protection order against Smith whose residence was on Wolffs
delivery route. Following a hearing, the order was granted by
the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery
C.P. No. 17-CV-1711.
3} On August 4, 2017, Wolff was delivering mail on
Smith's street when Smith exited a vehicle and approached
Wolff. Smith appeared angry and began yelling at Wolff. Smith
stated that he was "going to knock out all of [Wolffs]
f****** teeth[, ]" and that he wanted to "f***
[Wolff] up." Tr. p. 104-105. Wolff walked away from
Smith, crossed the street to another home and called the
police. While Wolff was on his cellular telephone with
dispatch, Smith continued to yell at him.
4} A complaint was filed charging Smith with one
count of violation of the protection order in violation of
R.C. 2919.27(A)(2), a first degree misdemeanor. A jury trial
was conducted in February 2018, following which the jury
found Smith guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Sm
ith to a jail term of 180 days with credit for 17 days
served. The court suspended the remaining 163 days. The court
also sentenced Smith to one year of basic supervised
probation with 20 days of electronic home detention. The
trial court ordered Smith to comply with treatment through
the Veteran's Administration. Finally, the court ordered
Smith to pay a fine of $50 and court costs.
5} Smith appeals.
6} Smith asserts the following three assignments of
APPELLANTS CONVICTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE DENIAL OF HIS RIGHT TO
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS
UNDER THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION. THE ...