[Cite as State v. Rhymer, 2018-Ohio-2669.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 - vs - 

TROY D. RHYMER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2018-01-014 

O P I N I O N 

7/9/2018 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2015-05-0807 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John C. Heinkel, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Gieske Law Office, LLC, Krista M. Gieske, 810 Sycamore Street, 3rd Floor, Cincinnati, OH 

45202, for defendant-appellant 

 S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Troy D. Rhymer, appeals the decision of the Butler 

County Court of Common Pleas calculating the days of jail-time credit he was entitled to 

receive after he admitted to violating his community control sanctions. For the reasons 

outlined below, we dismiss this appeal as moot. 

{¶ 2} On June 17, 2015, the Butler County Grand Jury returned an indictment 
Butler CA2018-01-014 

 - 2 - 

charging Rhymer with single counts of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle and 

criminal damaging or endangering. Approximately one month later, Rhymer pled guilty to 

improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle charge in exchange for dismissal of the 

criminal damaging or endangering charge. The trial court accepted Rhymer's guilty plea 

and thereafter sentenced Rhymer to a five-year community control term. It is undisputed 

that Rhymer had spent 93 days in jail prior to the trial court issuing its sentencing decision. 

{¶ 3} On August 25, 2016, a notice was filed with the trial court alleging Rhymer 

had violated his community control sanctions by failing to report to the adult probation 

department as directed, by submitting a positive urine test, and by failing to pay court costs, 

supervision fees and restitution as ordered. Appearing before the trial court, Rhymer 

admitted to violating his community control sanctions as alleged. Accepting Rhymer's 

admission, the trial court continued Rhymer on community control with the additional 

requirement that he successfully complete the Community Correctional Center program and 

recommended aftercare.1 It is undisputed that Rhymer completed the Community 

Correctional Center program and the recommended aftercare, which required Rhymer be 

committed to the Community Correctional Center for a period of 147 days. It is also 

undisputed that Rhymer spent 28 days in jail prior to being committed to the Community 

Correction Center. 

{¶ 4} On December 13, 2017, a notice was filed with the trial court alleging Rhymer 

had again violated his community control sanctions by attempting to circumvent a drug 

screen by using another individual's urine as his own, by failing to comply with the terms of 

his payment agreement, and by failing to complete his required community service or obtain 

his GED. Appearing before the trial court, Rhymer again admitted to violating his 

 

1. The Community Correctional Center is a community based correctional facility for adult male felony 

offenders referred by common pleas courts serving primarily Butler, Clermont, and Warren counties. 
Butler CA2018-01-014 

 - 3 - 

community control sanctions. However, instead of continuing Rhymer on community 

control, the trial court sentenced Rhymer to serve 180 days in prison with jail-time credit for 

24 days served. In so holding, the trial court informed Rhymer he was only "going to get 

credit for the time he's been held in jail on this probation violation" and not for "his first 

probation violation and everything else." 

{¶ 5} On January 19, 2018, approximately two weeks after the trial court issued its 

sentencing decision, Rhymer filed a notice of appeal. That same day, Rhymer also filed a 

"Motion for Appellate Bond" asking the trial court release him on bond during the pendency 

of his appeal. As part of this motion, Rhymer noted that there was an issue regarding the 

calculation of jail-time credit, and therefore, "[s]hould the Court deny his request for 

appellate bond, then Rhymer's appeal may be rendered moot because his sentence will 

expire prior to any decision by the Twelfth District Court of Appeals." The trial court 

summarily denied Rhymer's motion on January 25, 2018. After the trial court denied his 

motion, it is undisputed that Rhymer did not then request bail and suspension of his 

sentence pending appeal with this court as permitted by App.R. 8. 

{¶ 6} On appeal, Rhymer raises the following single assignment of error for review. 

{¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO PROPERLY 

CALCULATE THE CORRECT NUMBER OF DAYS OF JAIL TIME CREDIT TO WHICH 

RHYMER WAS ENTITLED AND IN FAILING TO INCORPORATE SAID DAYS INTO ITS 

SENTENCING ENTRY. 

{¶ 8} In his single assignment of error, Rhymer argues the trial court erred by 

granting only 24 days of jail-time credit, without also giving him credit for the 147 days he 

was committed to the Community Correctional Center. "Time spent in a rehabilitation facility 

where one's ability to leave whenever he or she wishes is restricted may be confinement 

for the purposes of R.C. 2967.191." State v. Osborne, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2009CA0119, 
Butler CA2018-01-014 

 - 4 - 

2010-Ohio-4100, ¶ 14, citing State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646, 2001-Ohio-1890. 

However, as noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, once an offender has completed his or her 

prison sentence, any alleged error relating to the calculation of jail-time credit becomes 

moot as there is no longer an existing case or controversy. State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula, 

132 Ohio St.3d 35, 2012-Ohio-1653, ¶ 5, citing State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio 

St. 3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, ¶ 6; and Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio663, ¶ 5 ("appeal is moot because his sentence has now expired and he has been released 

from prison"). 

{¶ 9} In this case, the records from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction indicate Rhymer was released from prison on June 6, 2018.2 As a result, even 

assuming Rhymer was correct that the trial court erred by granting only 24 days of jail-time 

credit, because Rhymer has now completed his 180-day prison sentence, there is no relief 

that this court can provide to Rhymer on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Hiler, 12th Dist. Butler 

No. CA2015-05-084, 2015-Ohio-5200, ¶ 20-21 (assignment of error challenging the trial 

court's award of jail-time credit moot where appellant had since completed her six-month 

prison sentence); State v. Jama, 10th Dist. Franklin 17AP-569, 2018-Ohio-1274, ¶ 14-17 

(appeal challenging trial court's award of jail-time credit rendered moot by "[appellant's] 

release from confinement on the expiration of her sentence"); State v. Henderson, 2d Dist. 

No. 27559, 2018-Ohio-608, ¶ 20 (appeal rendered moot where appellant had completed 

his two year prison sentence "and there is no available remedy in that case"). 

{¶ 10} In so holding, we note that "the issue of jail-time credit relates only to the 

length of the sentence and not the underlying conviction and, therefore, there is no collateral 

 

2. As this court has done previously, we take judicial notice of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction's website of the date Rhymer was released from prison. See State v. Barnes, 12th Dist. Warren 

No. CA2015-01-005, 2015-Ohio-3523, ¶ 9, fn. 1, citing State v. Bennett, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2014-CA-60, 

2015-Ohio-2779, ¶ 5, fn. 1; and State v. Draper, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-10-07, 2011-Ohio-773, ¶ 9, fn. 1. 
Butler CA2018-01-014 

 - 5 - 

disability." State v. McCormick, 6th Dist. Wood Nos. WD-15-078 and WD-15-079, 2016-

Ohio-8009, ¶ 9; State v. Field, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2016-G-0066, 2016-Ohio-5885, ¶ 4. 

We further note that "the exception to the mootness doctrine, when a claim is capable of 

repetition, yet evades review, does not apply to claims for jail-time credit because there is 

no reasonable expectation an offender will be subject to the same action again." State v. 

Barnes, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-01-005, 2015-Ohio-3523, ¶ 8, citing Murphy, 2006-

Ohio-6572 at ¶ 6. "There is a means to challenge the jail-time credit issue even when there 

is insufficient time to seek a direct appeal. If a defendant seeks immediate release from 

prison because of an alleged error in the calculation of his jail-time credit, he may seek relief 

by filing a habeas corpus petition." State v. Feagin, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-12-014, 2013-

Ohio-1837, ¶ 5, citing State ex rel. Rudolph v. Horton, 119 Ohio St.3d 350, 2008-Ohio-4476, 

¶ 3. 

{¶ 11} In light of the foregoing, even assuming Rhymer was correct that the trial court 

erred by granting only 24 days of jail-time credit, because there is no longer an existing 

case or controversy for this court to resolve on appeal as Rhymer has completed his 180-

day prison sentence, Rhymer's single assignment of error is dismissed as moot. 

{¶ 12} Appeal dismissed. 

 PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.