[Cite as State v. Dorazio , 2023
- Ohio
- 3126.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

- vs - DANIEL D. DORAZIO,

Defendant

- Appellant. CASE NO. 2023 - A - 0014
Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2018 CR 00517

O P I N I O N Decided : September 5, 2023 Judgment: Affirmed in part , r ever s ed in part , and remanded

Colleen M. O’Toole , Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Christine Davis , Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff

- Appellee). James R. Eskridge , Megargel Eskridge & Mullins, 231 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Defendant

- Appellant).
ROBERT J. PATTON, J. {¶1} Appellant, Daniel D. Dorazio, appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for jail time credit. He asserts that he is entitled to jail time credit for time spent incarcerated prior to his conviction and sentence. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

. {¶2} On August 15, 20 18 , the Ashtabula County Grand Jury indicted a ppellant in Case No. 2018 CR 517 ( “ Ashtabula County Case ” ) on the following charges: Illegal Manufacture o f Drugs, a first degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3)(b) (Count 1) ; Illegal Assembly or Possession of Chemicals for the Manufacture of Drugs, a second2

Case No. 2023

- A

- 0014 degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.041 (A)(C)(2) (Count 2) ; and Possessing Criminal Tools, a fifth degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A) (Count 3)

. {¶3} Appellant was arrested over six months later in Lake County on February 18, 2019 . He was arrested on the Ashtabula County warrant and a separate warrant regarding child support

. {¶4} The following day, a Complaint for separate and unrelated charges was filed in Lake Co unty C o urt of Common Pleas Case No. 2019 CR 207 (“Lake County Case”)

. Appellant did not post bond in the Lake County Case

. Five months later, on July 18 , 2019,

a ppellant entered a plea of guilty in the Lake Count y case and w as sentenced to five (5) years i mprisonment . Appellant was given 148 days of jail time credit from the date of the filing of the Lake County Complaint to the date of his sentencing in that case

. {¶5} On August 14, 2019, a ppellant’s notice of place of imprisonment and his request for disposition of pending indictments was filed in the Ashtabula County Case

. He was subsequently arraigned on October 4, 2019, and bond was set at $100,000.00 cash or surety

. He did not post bond. {¶6} On November 7, 2019, pursuant to a plea agreeme nt, a ppellant entered a guilty plea to Illegal Manufacture of Drugs, a first degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3)(b) . T he remaining counts of the Ashtabula County indictment were dismissed. The trial court accepted Dorazio’s plea and proceed ed directly to sentencing

. {¶7} The trial court imposed the jointly recommended mandatory sentence of five (5) years and ordered the sentence to be served concurrently to the sentence he was serving in the Lake County Case

. Appellant received no jail time cred it in the Ashtabula County C ase.3

Case No. 2023

- A

- 0014 {¶8} Appellant timely appeals and raises the following assignment s of error: {¶9} [1] “ The trial court erred by denying appellant’s motions for jail

- time credit from the date of his arrest, February 18, 20 19 , through his sentencing, November 13, 2019

. ” 1 {¶10} [2] “ The trial court erred by denying appellant’s motions for jail

- time credit without holding a hearing as required by R.C. 2929.19(G)(2)(g)(ii). ” 2 {¶11} R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) states in pertinent part: The sentencing co urt retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any error not previously raised at sentencing in making a determination [of jail

- time credit] under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section. The offender may, at any time after sentencing, file a motion in the s entencing court to correct any error made in making a determination under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section, and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that motion. {¶12} Thus, a trial court's denial of a motion to correct jail

- time credit is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. McClafferty , 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2020

- G

- 0238, 2020

- Ohio

- 3238, ¶32. Accord State v. Dammons , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021

- L

117, 2 022

- Ohio

- 2387, ¶ 6. {¶13} An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision

- making.’” State v. Beechler , 2d Dist. Clark No. 09

- CA

- 54, 2010

- Ohio

- 1900, ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.2004). {¶14} Appe llant seeks additional jail time credit for the time he served in the Lake County Jail from the date of his arrest on the Ashtabula County warrant on February 18,

1. Upon review of the record , this Court considers this assignment of error to arise from Appellant’s arrest on February 18 , 2019 t o the date of Appellant’s sentencing i n Ashtabula County on November 7 , 2019

. 2

. The Court considers this assignment of error to be raised pursua nt to 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(ii).”4

Case No. 2023

- A

- 0014 2019, until the date he was sentenced in the Ashtabula County Case on November 7, 2019. {¶15} R.C. 2967.191(A) provides in relevant part:

The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the prison term of a prisoner * * * by the total number of days that the prisoner was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced, including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial, confinement for examination to determine the prisoner’s competence to stand trial or sanity, confinement while awaiting transportation to the place where the prisoner is to serve the prisoner’s prison term * * *. (Emphasis added.). {¶16} In other words, “ j ail

- time credit is appropriate only when the facts and circumstances giving rise to the incarceration are the result of the charge for which the offender is event ually sentenced.” State v. Struble , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2005

- L

- 115, 2006

- Ohio

- 3417, ¶ 11. {¶17} The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a defendant held on bond is not entitled to jail

- time credit for presentence detention “if, during the same period of time, he is serving a sentence on an unrelated case.” State v. Cupp , 156 Ohio St.3d 207, 2018

- Ohio

- 5211, 124 N.E.3d 811, ¶ 4. See Struble at ¶ 11 (“there is no jail

- time credit for time served on unrelated offenses, even if that time served runs concurrently du ring the pre

detention phase of another matter”). {¶18} The p arties agree that a ppellant began serving a sentence on the Lake County Case on July 18, 2019. Therefore, a ppellant is not entitled to jail time credit in the Ashtabula County case for time incarcerat ed as a result of the sentence imposed by Lake County in an unrelated case

. Cupp, supra, at ¶ 4. In other words, a ppellant is not entitled5

Case No. 2023

- A

- 0014 to any credit from the date he was sentenced in the Lake County case to the date he was sentenced in the Ashtabula County Case ( July 18, 2019 to November 7, 2019 )

. {¶19} We must next consider if a ppellant is entitled to any credit from the date of his arrest on the indictment in the Ashtabula County Case to the date he was sentenced in the L ake County Case ( February 18, 2019 to July 18, 2019 )

. {¶20} “Whether jail

- time credit accrues simultaneously when a defendant is in pretrial confinement on multiple cases ordinarily depends on whether he receives concurrent or consecutive sentences.” State v. Chester , 11 th Dist. Portage No. 2022

- P

0060, 2023

- Ohio

- 2122, ¶ 22 citing State v. Steinmetz , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2019

- CA

- 40, 2020

- Ohio

- 1145, ¶ 11

. “A defendant may accrue jail time credit in multiple cases at the same time, if he or she is held in pretrial confinement in multiple cases simultaneously.” Steinmetz, supra , ¶ 11. The Second District Court of Appeals clarified: “‘ [w] here a later

sentencing court makes its sentence concurrent with an earlier sentence, a defendant is entitled to jail

- time credit in both cases for any time that he was held in pretrial confinement on both cases simultaneously .’ ” (Citations omitted). (Emphasis added). Steinmetz , ¶ 12. {¶21} The trial court docket reflects that an arrest warrant was issued for a ppellant on the charges in the Ashtabula Co unty indictment on August 15, 2018

. Both a ppellant and a ppellee, the State of Ohio , a gree that a ppellant was arrested on the Ashtabula County warrant on February 18, 2019

. There is no notation on the trial court docket regarding Appellant’s arrest or return on the warrant until a ppellant’s notice of place of imprisonment and his request for disposition of pending indictments.6

Case No. 2023

- A

- 0014 {¶22} Nearly eight months after his arrest on the warr ant, a ppellant was arraigned on October 4, 2019. At arraignment, the trial court set bond at $100,000.00 cash or surety, which a ppellant did not post. There is nothing in the record to suggest that a ppellant was released or that the warrant was recalled du ring the period of incarceration from

a ppellant ’ s arrest until the imposition of the sentence by Lake County

. {¶23} In the judgment entry denying a ppellant’s motion for jail time credit, the trial court indicated that appellant was served the indictment on Octob er 4, 2019, the date of his arraignment, and that he was given no jail time credit :

The defendant was given credit for no jail time credit in this case, due to the fact that he had been serving a previously imposed prison sentence during the entire time t his case was pending . Had the defendant not been serving a previous prison sentence he would be eligible for jail time credit from service of the indictment until t he sentencing date, October 4, 2019 to November 7, 2019, for a total of thirty

- four days. (E mphasis added). {¶24} This Court notes that a ppellant did not begin serving his prison sentence arising out of Lake County until July 18, 2019. This Cou r t has consistently calculated jail time credit from the date of arrest until the defendant is released, rel eased on bond, or is sentenced. See State v. White , 11 th Dist. No. Trumbull No. 2021

- T

- 0055 , 2022

- Ohio

2630, ¶ 21 , State v. Haendel , 11 th Dist. Trumbull No. 2017

– T

– 0006 , 2017

- Ohio

- 5775, ¶
2 ; State v. Smith , 11 th Dist. Lake No. 2016

– L

– 107 , 2017

- Ohio

- 4124, ¶ 13

. {¶25} R.C. 2967.191(A) makes clear that an individual is entitled to a reduction of their sentence "by the total number of days that the prisoner was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was convicted a nd sentenced.” (Emphasis added). As such, jail time credit would necessarily begin to accrue when a criminal defendant is arrested and confined on the underlying criminal charges. Therefore, had7

Case No. 2023

- A

- 0014 a ppellant not been serving a sentence in the Lake County Case , a ppellant would have been entitled to jail time credit from the date of his arrest until released on bon d or until the date of his sentencing in the Ashtabula County Case. {¶26} A review of the record demonstrates that a ppellant was held, at least in part, on the Ashtabula County warrant beginning on February 18, 2019, when he was arrested

. At oral arguments, the state conceded that appellant is entitled for credit for the date of his arrest on the Ashtabula County warrant. Therefore , a ppellant would b e entitled to jail time credit for , at a minimum, a single day. It is on these grounds that this Court determines that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied a ppellant’s motion for jail time credit and concluded a ppellant was not entitled to any days of jail time credit. {¶27} While the record before us is sufficient to determine that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a ppellant’s motion for jail time credit , the record is insufficient for this Court to determine the appropriate amou nt of jail time credit

. There is no indication in the record that the warrant was recalled. However, it is clear that appellant was not given an opportunity to post bond in the Ashtabula County case until after Lake County had sentenced him. Appellant is e ntitled to any time he was confined on the underlying charges in the Ashtabula County Case which may include the entire period of confinement from appellant’s arrest until the date of appellant’s sentencing in Lake County to wit: 149 days. {¶28} Accordingly, un der the circumstances of this case, the Court finds

a ppellant’s first assignment of error has merit. {¶29} In a ppellant’s s econd a ssignment of e rror, a ppellant alleged that the trial
court erred by failing to hold a hearing on the motion for jail time credit. W e disagree.8

Case No. 2023

- A

- 0014 {¶30} There is no statutory provision that mandates a trial court to hold a hearing on post
- sentencing motions for jail time credit. Just as the decision to grant or deny a motion is within the trial court’s discretion, the decision to hold a hearin g on that motion is also at the trial court’s discretion. R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) . While we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for the reasons set forth above, this Court does not conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to decide the motion without a hearing. {¶31} Therefore , a ppellant’s second as signment of error is without merit. {¶32} For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part and reversed in part as to the calculation of jail time credit . T he case is remanded to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of jail time credit to which appellant is entitled

.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J. , MATT LYNCH, J. ,
concur

.