[Cite as State v. Zachman, 2023-Ohio-3661.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

CLARK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

 Appellee 

v. 

MARKUS ZACHMAN

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. No. 2023-CA-10

Trial Court Case No. 22-CR-0876

(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas 

Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on October 6, 2023

. . . . . . . . . . . 

J. DAVID TURNER, Attorney for Appellant

 

ROBERT C. LOGSDON, Attorney for Appellee

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

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Markus Zachman appeals from his conviction, following his guilty plea, on

one count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. The State 

concedes error in sentencing, noting that the trial court improperly imposed post-release 

control (“PRC”) at the sentencing hearing and in its judgment entry of conviction. We 
-2-

independently note that the trial court also failed to properly determine Zachman’s jailtime credit. The judgment will be affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded solely 

for resentencing on PRC and jail-time credit, consistent with this opinion.

Procedural History

{¶ 2} On November 29, 2022, Zachman was indicted on one count of failure to 

comply, one count of assault, and one count of obstructing official business, and he pled 

not guilty. On February 6, 2023, Zachman pled guilty to failure to comply; pursuant to a 

plea agreement, the other two counts were dismissed. The trial court imposed a prison 

sentence of 36 months. Additionally, with respect to PRC, the trial court informed 

Zachman at the sentencing hearing that he could be placed on PRC for “up to 2 years”; 

in its judgment entry, the court stated that PRC was “optional for up to two (2) years” but 

could be “increased up to a maximum term of eight years” if Zachman violated the terms 

of PRC. 

{¶ 3} Zachman appeals from his conviction. 

Imposition of Post-Release Control

{¶ 4} Zachman asserts the following assignment of error:

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT PROPERLY IMPOSE POSTRELEASE CONTROL AT THE SENTENCING HEARING AND IN ITS 

JUDGMENT ENTRY.

{¶ 5} Zachman argues that the trial court did not properly impose PRC. The State 

agrees, specifically conceding that Zachman was not adequately advised at the 

sentencing hearing of the potential consequences of violating PRC and that the trial court 
-3-

erred when it stated in its judgment entry that the duration of PRC could be increased to 

a maximum of eight years. 

{¶ 6} “Post-release control involves a period of supervision by the Adult Parole 

Authority after an offender's release from prison that includes one or more post-release 

control sanctions imposed under R.C. 2967.28.” State v. Collins, 2d Dist. Montgomery 

No. 27939, 2018-Ohio-4760, ¶ 15. PRC “is mandatory for some offenses and is imposed 

at the discretion of the Parole Board for others, depending on the nature and degree of 

the offense.” Id., citing R.C. 2967.28(B) and (C); State v. Manzi, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2022-

CA-24, 2023-Ohio-732, ¶ 10. 

{¶ 7} “ * * * R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(d) and (e) require the trial court ‘to notify the 

offender at his sentencing hearing that, depending on the degree of the offense in 

question, the offender “will” or “may” be placed on [PRC] after he is released from 

prison.’ ” State v. Coffee, 2d Dist. Clark Nos. 2022-CA-54, 2022-CA-55, 2023-Ohio-474, 

¶ 15, quoting State v. Davis, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29316, 2022-Ohio-2373, ¶ 9. R.C. 

2929.19(B)(2)(f) requires the trial court to notify the offender that if he violates PRC, “the 

parole board may impose a prison term, as part of the sentence, of up to one-half of the 

definite prison term originally imposed upon the offender as the offender’s stated prison 

term or up to one-half of the minimum prison term originally imposed upon the offender 

as part of the offender’s stated non-life felony indefinite prison term.” The Supreme 

Court of Ohio has held that the trial court must advise the offender at the sentencing 

hearing of the term of supervision, whether PRC is discretionary or mandatory, and the 

consequences of violating PRC. State v. Bates, 167 Ohio St.3d 197, 2022-Ohio-475,
-4-

190 N.E.3d 610, ¶ 11. In addition to the required oral advisements, the trial court is also 

required to incorporate the PRC advisements into its sentencing entry. Manzi at ¶ 13.

{¶ 8} At the disposition hearing in this case, the trial court advised Zachman as 

follows:

* * * The Court is going to order the Defendant be sentenced to 36 

months in the Ohio State Penitentiary, a 10-year license suspension. Upon 

your release, you could be placed on post-release control for up to 2 years 

and you will receive credit for the time spent in the Clark County Jail dating 

back to November 22nd of last year. * * *

{¶ 9} The judgment entry stated:

The Court notified the defendant that PRC is optional for up to two 

(2) years. The defendant is therefore Ordered to serve as part of this 

sentence any term of PRC imposed upon him by the Parole Authority.

The Court further notified the defendant that one of the following 

sanctions could be imposed upon him if he violates PRC: (1) The duration 

of PRC may be increased up to a maximum term of eight years; (2) more 

restrictive rules may be placed upon him; (3) he could return to prison (the 

maximum term for each violation is one-half of the original prison term or 

nine months, whichever is less, and the maximum cumulative term for all 

violations is one-half of the original prison term); and (4) if he commits a 

felony offense while on PRC and is convicted of that offense, his PRC could 

be terminated and he could be sentenced to prison for the greater of one 
-5-

year or the amount of time he has remaining on PRC and it would be 

mandatory that the PRC time run consecutively to his sentence on the new 

felony offense.

{¶ 10} Zachman pled guilty to one count of failure to comply in violation of R.C. 

2921.331(B), which provides that “no person shall operate a motor vehicle so as willfully 

to elude or flee a police officer after receiving a visible or audible sign from a police officer 

to bring the person’s motor vehicle to a stop.” The offense is a felony of the third degree 

if the operation of the motor vehicle caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to 

persons or property. R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii). Zachman was subject to mandatory 

PRC due to his guilty plea to an R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii) violation, an offense of violence 

pursuant to R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)(c). R.C. 2967.28(B) provides that “[e]ach sentence to a 

prison term * * * for a felony of the third degree that is an offense of violence * * * shall

include a requirement that the offender be subject to a period of [PRC] imposed by the 

parole board after the offender’s release from imprisonment.” For a felony of the third 

degree that is an offense of violence, the period of PRC required is “up to three years, but 

not less than one year.” R.C. 2967.28(B)(4). 

{¶ 11} Here, the trial court erred by advising Zachman at disposition that he “could 

be placed on [PRC] for up to 2 years.” The trial court further failed to advise Zachman 

regarding the consequences of violating PRC at disposition. The court’s judgment entry 

was also incorrect in that it provides that PRC was optional for up to two years and its 

duration could be increased “up to a maximum term of eight years.” We therefore 

conclude that the trial court did not properly impose PRC, either at the sentencing hearing 
-6-

or in its judgment entry of conviction. Zachman’s assignment of error is accordingly 

sustained.

Jail-Time Credit

{¶ 12} Although not raised by the parties, we note that the trial court was also 

required to determine Zachman’s jail-time credit at the time of sentencing, to notify 

Zachman of the number of days of jail-time credit he was to receive, and to include that 

information in its judgment entry. See R.C. 2949.08(B) and (C); R.C. 2967.191(A); R.C. 

2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i); Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(B); State v. Springs, 2d Dist. Clark No. 

2022-CA-18, 2022-Ohio-4414, ¶ 5-7; State v. Windsor, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2021-CA-25, 

2022-Ohio-1785, ¶ 4-7. 

{¶ 13} In State v. Wade, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2015-CA-45, 2015-Ohio-5171, ¶ 14, 

we noted that “R.C. 2949.08(B) specifies * * * that ‘the person’s conviction shall specify 

the total number of days, if any, that the person was confined’ on the offense prior to 

his conviction and ‘prior to delivery to the jailer, administrator, or keeper.’ (Emphasis 

added.).” In Wade, we also concluded that the trial court’s failure to reduce the amount 

of jail-time credit to a number of days, as required by R.C. 2949.08(B), coupled with the 

absence of any opportunity for the defendant to be heard on the issue of jail-time credit, 

warranted remanding the matter for the court to properly address the issue.” Id. at ¶ 15.

{¶ 14} Here, the trial court advised Zachman at the sentencing hearing that he 

would receive jail-time credit “dating back to November 22nd of last year,” and the 

judgment entry stated that he would receive jail-time credit “from November 22, 2022 until 

conveyed to ODRC.” As in Wade, the trial court failed to reduce the amount of jail-time 
-7-

credit to a number of days and to give Zachman an opportunity to be heard on the issue.

{¶ 15} Because the trial court erred in imposing PRC and in failing to properly 

calculate jail-time credit, the trial court’s judgment will be reversed in part, and the matter 

will be remanded for resentencing on PRC and jail-time credit only. In all other respects, 

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

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