State V Streets
[Cite as State v. Streets, 2025-Ohio-2598.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 114683
v. :
MICHAEL STREETS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 24, 2025
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-23-685323-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Patituce & Associates, LLC, and Joseph C. Patituce, for
appellant.
DEENA R. CALABRESE, J.:
Defendant-appellant Michael Streets (“Streets”) appeals the trial court’s
denial of his motion to modify a condition of community control, which requires
monitoring of all electronic devices he uses for personal or work use. For the reasons
set forth below, we dismiss his appeal.
I. Facts
In fall 2019, Streets was a 31-year-old advisor for the Bay Village High
School robotics team. The victim, S.W., was a 17-year-old high school senior on the
team. Starting in early November 2019, Streets began contacting S.W. via text and
Snapchat that “took [on] sexual undertones.” Streets and S.W. met up with each
other four times outside of school, and at least two of those meetings involved sexual
activity. The relationship ended after two months. Streets began to harass S.W.
while she was away at college. She told the trial court that “on at least two different
occasions [Streets] called [S.W.] with fake numbers [and] used a fake voice to ensure
that she was on the phone before revealing his true voice and letting her know that
it was him.” These telephone calls led to S.W. reporting the 2019 relationship to
police.
II. Procedural History
On October 2, 2023, Streets was indicted on two counts of sexual
battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(7), both felonies of the third degree. On
August 13, 2024, as part of a plea agreement, Streets entered a guilty plea to both
counts as amended to sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(1), both
misdemeanors of the third degree. Sentencing was held on the same day. 1 The trial
1 A presentence investigation was not completed.
court sentenced Streets to 60 days in the Cuyahoga County Jail on each count, to be
served consecutively, and suspended the sentence. The trial court also ordered him
to register as a Tier 1 sex offender, pay a fine, and serve community control. The
trial court made the following findings regarding community-control sanctions:
It is therefore ordered that the defendant is sentenced to two years of
community control on each count, under the supervision of the adult
probation department’s sex offender unit with the following
conditions:
1.) Defendant to abide by all rules and regulations of the probation
department.
2.) Report as directed by probation officer.
3.) Submit to sex offender assessment, which may include polygraph
examination.
4.) Successfully complete sex offender counseling as indicated by sex
offender assessment.
5.) Subject to polygraph examinations as recommended by treatment
team.
6.) Follow all additional recommendations of treatment team.
7.) Attend additional programming as indicated in case plan.
8.) Defendant is ordered to pay a monthly supervision fee of $20.
9.) Random drug testing.
10.) Conditions and terms of probation are subject to modification by
the probation officer and approval of the court.
On September 17, 2024, the trial court issued an order that “at the
request of the probation [department], [Streets] is ordered to participate in the IPPC
pilot project.” On September 30, 2024, at Streets’s request, the trial court
transferred his supervision to the Trumbull County Probation Department, Sex
Offender Unit. On October 29, 2024, Streets filed a motion to modify the conditions
of probation, asking the trial court to eliminate the monitoring of all electronic
devices he uses as required by the IPPC pilot project. The trial court overruled
Streets’s motion on December 5, 2024, stating that he “is required to comply with
all condition[s] of probation.”
This appeal, filed on December 20, 2024, stems from the denial of
Streets’s motion to modify the conditions of probation. Streets raises a single
assignment of error for our review:
The trial court abused its discretion after sentencing in ordering
appellant to participate in the IPPC pilot project mandating that any
electronic device he possess[es] be monitored and recorded by a third
party despite the condition having no relation to the offense in which
he was convicted.
III. Law and Analysis
In his sole assignment of error, Streets argues that the trial court abused
its discretion when it ordered him to participate in the IPPC pilot project mandating
that all electronic devices he uses be monitored.
App.R. 4(A)(1) provides that “a party who wishes to appeal from an
order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3
within 30 days of that entry.”
Streets’s appeal is limited to the December 5, 2024 denial of his motion
to modify the conditions of probation, where he moved the trial court to remove the
IPPC pilot project as a condition of his probation. Although Streets timely filed a
notice of appeal of the denial of the motion, his sole assignment of error argues that
the trial court erred when it imposed this condition of probation. The record reflects
that the IPPC pilot project condition of community control was imposed by the trial
court on September 17, 2024.
Because the sole assignment of error pertains to the imposition of a
condition of community control that predates the December 5, 2024 denial of his
motion, the issue is outside the scope of the instant appeal. Cleveland v. Sabetta,
2021-Ohio-4426, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Davis, 2017-Ohio-7713, ¶ 16 (8th
Dist.).
Further, Streets could have challenged the imposition of the
additional community-control sanction on direct appeal. However, he did not
appeal the trial court’s September 17, 2024 order. Because Streets’s core argument
in the present appeal pertains to a purported error in the imposition of an additional
community-control sanction, it is now untimely and barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. “Res judicata bars the consideration of issues that could have been raised
on direct appeal.” Sabetta at ¶ 17, citing State v. Turner, 2018-Ohio-2730, ¶ 6 (8th
Dist.), citing State v. Saxon, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 16-17.
The record suggests Streets is attempting to “bootstrap” this appeal by
challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify conditions of community
control.
‘“Bootstrapping’ is ‘the utilization of a subsequent order to indirectly
and untimely appeal a prior order that was never directly appealed.’
State v. Williamson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102320, 2015-Ohio-5135,
¶ 9. Such attempt is ‘procedurally anomalous and inconsistent with the
appellate rules that contemplate a direct relationship between the
order from which the appeal is taken and the error assigned as a result
of that order’ and is disfavored. Williamson, citing State v. Church, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68590, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4838 (Nov. 2, 1995);
Bd. of Health v. Petro, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104882, 2017-Ohio-
1164, ¶ 12 (noting this court’s consistent declination to consider
bootstrapped claims).”
Sabetta at ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bhambra, 2017-Ohio-8485, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).
Because Streets’s present appeal amounts to an attempt at
bootstrapping a claim that is now time barred, we are without jurisdiction to
consider the appeal. Sabetta at ¶ 22, citing Bhambra at ¶ 13, citing State v. Cottrell,
2010-Ohio-5254, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.), and App.R. 4.
Appeal dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
DEENA R. CALABRESE, JUDGE
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR