[Cite as State v. Pope, 2012-Ohio-5452.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

GERALD POPE : Case No. 2012CA00159 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2010CR0893 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 13, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOHN D. FERRERO GERALD A. POPE, PRO SE 

Prosecuting Attorney Inmate No. 623-245 

 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 

By: RENEE M. WATSON P.O. Box 8000 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Conneaut, OH 44030 

110 Central Plaza South 

Suite 510 

Canton, OH 44702-1413 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00159 2 

Farmer, J. 

{¶1} On June 30, 2010, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Gerald 

Pope, on five counts of nonsupport of dependents in violation of R.C. 2919.21. 

Appellant pled guilty to the charges on August 18, 2010. By judgment entry filed 

October 4, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to five years of community control 

with conditions, including electronically monitored house arrest. 

{¶2} On October 27, 2011, appellant's probation officer filed a motion to revoke 

appellant's probation for violating several rules. On December 20, 2011, an addendum 

to the motion to revoke was filed to add appellant's active warrants for passing bad 

checks. 

{¶3} A hearing was held on March 14, 2012. By judgment entry filed March 23, 

2012, the trial court revoked appellant's community control and sentenced him to 

fourteen months in prison. 

{¶4} On July 23, 2012, appellant filed a motion for jail time credit for his time 

spent on electronic monitored house arrest. By judgment entry filed July 26, 2012, the 

trial court denied the motion. 

{¶5} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignments of error are as follows: 

I 

{¶6} "I FEEL AS THOUGH THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MY DUE 

PROCESS RIGHTS BY NOT CREDITING THE TIME I SPENT ON ELECTRONICALLY 

MONITORED HOUSE ARREST AS PART OF MY COMMUNITY CONTROL." 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00159 3 

II 

{¶7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED MY JAIL TIME CREDIT 

FOR DAYS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED ON ELECTRONICALLY MONITORED 

HOUSE ARREST WHEN A SUBSEQUENT PRISON TERM WAS IMPOSED FOR A 

VIOLATION." 

I, II 

{¶8} Appellant challenges the trial court's failure to give him jail time credit for 

time spent on electronically monitored house arrest as such constituted detention. We 

disagree. 

{¶9} This court examined this same issue in State v. Tabor, 5th Dist. No. 

11CA33, 2011-Ohio-3200. In Tabor, this court analyzed the meaning of "detention" and 

concluded the following at ¶ 18-20: 

In this case, appellant was only required to be at home between the 

hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. which was merely a curfew 

requirement. Appellant was free to move around within the county and 

could leave the county with permission as long as he abided by the terms 

of his community control. 

In State v. Blankenship, Franklin App. No. 10AP–651, 2011–Ohio–

1601, ¶ 19, our brethren from the Tenth District held, "[i]n light of the case 

law and statutory analysis set forth above, we hold that a person convicted 

of a misdemeanor offense is not entitled to time-served credit under R.C. 

2949.08(C) for time spent under EMHA as a condition of postconviction 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00159 4 

probation." Although Blankenship involved a misdemeanor case, we 

agree with the well-reasoned analysis therein. 

Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying appellant 

jail time credit for his time spent on electronic monitoring. 

{¶10} In the case sub judice, the trial court sentenced appellant to five years of 

community control and placed him in the Intensive Supervision Probation Program. 

Judgment Entry filed October 4, 2010. Appellant was ordered to serve "house arrest 

followed by a 9:00 p.m. curfew" and was assigned to the Stark County Day Reporting 

Program. Appellant was also informed of his freedom and lack of detention as follows: 

2. The Defendant shall keep the supervising officer informed of his 

residence and place of employment. The Defendant shall obtain 

permission from the supervising officer before changing residence or 

employment. The Defendant understands that if he is released and 

absconds supervision, he may be prosecuted for the crime of escape, 

under section 2921.34 of the Revised Code. 

3. The Defendant shall not leave the State of Ohio without written 

permission of the Adult Parole/Probation Department. 

16. The Defendant shall follow the following Special Conditions: 

f. That this defendant shall obtain and maintain verifiable full-time 

employment. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00159 5 

{¶11} Given the nature of appellant's community control, we find our decision in 

Tabor to be controlling. 

{¶12} Assignments of Error I and II are denied. 

{¶13} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio is 

hereby affirmed. 

By Farmer, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur. 

 

 

 

 _______________________________ 

 

 _______________________________ 

 _______________________________ 

 JUDGES 

SGF/sg 1029
[Cite as State v. Pope, 2012-Ohio-5452.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

GERALD POPE : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 2012CA00159 

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to 

appellant. 

 _______________________________ 

 

 _______________________________ 

 _______________________________ 

 JUDGES