Steven Hood v. Julius Wilson

OPINION

Petitioner Steven Hood appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habe-as corpus. Because Hood’s period of incarceration has expired, we find the appeal is now moot. See United States v. Waltanen, 356 Fed.Appx. 848, 851 (6th Cir. 2009) (“If a prisoner does not challenge the validity of the conviction but rather only challenges his sentence or some aspect of it, the request for relief is moot once the challenged portion of the sentence has expired.”) (quoting United States v. Goldberg, 239 Fed.Appx. 993, 994 (6th Cir. 2007)). The sole issue before this court is whether Hood’s appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge his sentence of incarceration pursuant to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006). On February 6, 2006, Hood was sentenced to five years of incarceration, with eligibility for judicial release after serving four years. On February 24, 2010, Hood sent a letter to the court stating that he had been discharged from his prison term on February 22, 2010. Because he has served the challenged portion of his sentence, his petition is DISMISSED as moot.