[Cite as State v. Phillips, 2024-Ohio-2310.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 vs.

JESSICA PHILLIPS

 Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-240198

TRIAL NO. C-22CRB-6479

 O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Sentence Reversed in Part and Cause Remanded 

 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 18, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Norbert Wessels, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson, 

Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

KINSLEY, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jessica Phillips appeals the sentence of the 

Hamilton County Municipal Court following her guilty plea to solicitation in violation 

of R.C. 2907.47. The trial court sentenced Phillips to a suspended sentence of 60 days 

in jail and placed her on one year of community control. Phillips asserts that the trial 

court erred by failing to calculate and award her jail-time credit on the 60-day 

suspended sentence. For the following reasons, we sustain Phillips’s assignment of 

error and remand the matter for the limited purpose of accurately calculating the 

appropriate amount of jail-time credit that should be applied to Phillips’s sentence. 

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶2} On April 15, 2022, Phillips was charged with solicitation in violation of 

R.C. 2907.47, a third-degree misdemeanor. The complaint alleged that Phillips 

solicited an undercover officer to engage in sexual activity. On April 29, 2022, a 

warrant was issued for Phillips, and on January 17, 2024, Phillips was arrested on the 

warrant. 

{¶3} On January 30, 2024, Phillips simultaneously pled guilty to the 

solicitation charge and to a community control violation. At the time, Phillips was 

serving a community control sentence for a 2019 solicitation charge that was amended 

to disorderly conduct. 

{¶4} On February 5, 2024, the trial court sentenced Phillips on both charges. 

For the community control violation, the trial court terminated community control

and sentenced her to an amount of jail time that was the equivalent of her jail-time 

credit for that charge. For the solicitation charge, the trial court sentenced Phillips to 

60 days in jail, suspended the 60 days, placed Phillips on community control for a 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

period of one year, and remitted costs. The trial court did not, however, calculate 

Phillips’s jail-time credit for the solicitation charge.

{¶5} Phillips now appeals.

Sentencing 

{¶6} In Phillips’s sole assignment of error, she argues that the trial court 

committed plain error when it failed to award her jail-time credit pursuant to R.C. 

2949.08(C). The state concedes the error. 

{¶7} “Generally, we review a misdemeanor sentence for an abuse of 

discretion. However, when a trial court does not comply with the applicable 

sentencing statutes, we apply a de novo standard of review.” (Internal citation and 

quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kendrick, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220459, 2023-

Ohio-1763, ¶ 24.

{¶8} However, Phillips failed to raise this argument below; therefore, it is 

subject to plain-error review. Carlson v. City of Cincinnati, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C190631, 2020-Ohio-4685, ¶ 33. Plain errors must satisfy three limitations set forth in 

Crim.R. 52(B). State v. Garrett, 171 Ohio St.3d 139, 2022-Ohio-4218, 216 N.E.3d 569, 

¶ 63. First, an error, meaning a deviation from a legal rule, must have occurred. Id.

Second, the error must be plain, in that there must be an obvious defect in the trial 

proceedings. Id. Third, the error must have affected substantial rights, meaning that 

“the trial court’s error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” Id. “The trial 

court’s failure to properly award jail-time credit is an error cognizable on direct appeal 

and rises to the level of plain error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. 

Merz, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220085, 2023-Ohio-582, ¶ 14. This standard is 

satisfied here. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

{¶9} Phillips had a clear legal right to jail-time credit that the trial court 

clearly violated. Pursuant to R.C. 2949.08(C)(1), a person who is sentenced to jail for 

a misdemeanor shall have the sentence reduced “by the total number of days the 

person was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the person was 

convicted and sentenced, including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial[.]”

{¶10} Here, Phillips had been incarcerated prior to the date of sentencing for 

the solicitation charge, and that incarceration arose from the solicitation offense. The 

judge’s sheet indicates that the trial court intentionally held Phillips on both the 

solicitation and community control violation charges to force her to comply with a

previous order for medical testing. The trial court included jail-time credit for the 

community control violation, but failed to include credit in its sentence for the 

solicitation charge. This error affected Phillips’s substantial right to receive credit for 

the time she served in jail awaiting trial under R.C. 2949.08(C)(1).

{¶11} Because the trial court plainly erred in failing to include Phillips’s jailtime credit when it imposed its sentence for the solicitation charge, we sustain 

Phillips’s sole assignment of error. We accordingly reverse Phillips’s sentence in part 

and remand the matter for the limited purpose of calculating the appropriate amount 

of jail-time credit that should be awarded to Phillips. 

Sentence reversed in part and cause remanded. 

BOCK, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.