Court Opinion

ID: 9939846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 21:09:15.099021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:01.932778
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Harrop, 2024-Ohio-507.]

                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                           TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                            FAYETTE COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

        Appellee,                                  :    CASE NOS. CA2022-12-016
                                                                  CA2022-12-017
                                                   :
     - vs -                                                   OPINION
                                                   :           2/12/2024

 DREW J. HARROP,                                   :

        Appellant.                                 :

     CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                   Case Nos. CRI 20220076; CRI 20220159

Jess Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Drew J. Harrop, pro se.

        BYRNE, J.

        {¶ 1} Drew Harrop appeals from the sentences imposed by the Fayette County

Court of Common Pleas in conjunction with his convictions for drug possession and

complicity to grand theft of a motor vehicle. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

                              I. Factual and Procedural Background

        {¶ 2} In March 2022, a Fayette County grand jury indicted Harrop on one count

of drug possession (Case Number CRI 20220076, hereinafter "Case One"). In June
                                                                   Fayette CA2022-12-016
                                                                           CA2022-12-017

2022, a Fayette County grand jury indicted Harrop on one count of complicity to grand

theft of a motor vehicle (Case Number CRI 20220159, hereinafter "Case Two").

       {¶ 3} On August 8, 2022, Harrop, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor

appeared before the trial court to enter into what the trial court described as a "contingent

plea" concerning Cases One and Two. The negotiated agreement called for Harrop to

plead guilty to the counts in both Case One and Case Two, as charged. In exchange, the

state agreed to a "contingent recommendation" on sentence. That is, the state agreed to

recommend two sentencing options for the court to select from at the sentencing hearing.

Option One was an aggregate 12-month sentence, consisting of six-month sentences on

each count, served consecutively. Option Two was an aggregate nine-month sentence,

consisting of nine-month sentences on each count, run concurrently, plus a consecutively

run "sentence enhancement" in the amount of time remaining on Harrop's postrelease

control on a separate criminal matter. We will refer to the "sentence enhancement" time

as "PRC time."

       {¶ 4} The court reviewed the terms of the agreement with Harrop, who indicated

he understood the agreement as described by the state. The court then stated the

following to Harrop concerning what would happen if the court chose Option Two, the

nine-month sentence run consecutively with the sentence enhancement:

               The Court: [Y]ou would receive concurrent nine months on
               each of these charges plus the enhanced time which as of
               May, May the 24th was 929 days. So, you go forward to
               August the 22nd1 and that's about 90 days less. So, 90 days
               would come off of that 929. If your sentence is enhanced it
               would be approximately 850 days, something like that. Do
               you understand that?

               Harrop: Yes, sir.

1. August 22 was the sentencing date.
                                              -2-
                                                                 Fayette CA2022-12-016
                                                                         CA2022-12-017

      {¶ 5} The court thereafter engaged Harrop in a plea colloquy, determined that

Harrop was entering his plea voluntarily and knowingly, accepted his plea, and found him

guilty. On August 22, 2022, Harrop appeared before the court for sentencing. The court

noted that Harrop was non-compliant with postrelease control, which he had begun

serving upon his release from prison in August 2021. Based on this non-compliance and

other negative considerations discussed by the court at the hearing, the court determined

that it would impose Option Two.

      {¶ 6} Accordingly, the court orally imposed sentence on Cases One and Two of

nine months in prison on each count and ordered those sentences served concurrently.

The court also imposed "the remaining time on post release control * * *."

      {¶ 7} The court issued a judgment entry memorializing the sentence announced

at the hearing. With respect to sentence enhancement, the entry stated the following:

                 SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT/JUDICIAL SANCTION

             The Court further finds that at the time of this offense, the
             defendant was under Post Release Control supervision with
             the Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections. The
             Court hereby ORDERS that the defendant serve the time
             remaining on post-release control as of the date of this
             conviction, to be served consecutively to the prison term.

      {¶ 8} Harrop did not directly appeal his conviction on either Cases One or Two.

      {¶ 9} In October 2022, the ODRC filed a "notice of calculation of sentence" in

Cases One and Two with the trial court. The notice listed 0.75 year sentences for Cases

One and Two. The notice also listed a judicial sanction consisting of 2.39 years. Finally,

the notice listed the "total sentence" as "872 JIPT + 0.75 HB86-5." It appears that "872

JIPT" refers to the PRC time (2.39 multiplied by 365 days equals 872 days).

      {¶ 10} In December 2022, Harrop filed a notice of appeal and simultaneously

moved this court to permit him to file a delayed appeal of his convictions in Cases One

                                            -3-
                                                                    Fayette CA2022-12-016
                                                                            CA2022-12-017

and Two. In January 2023, this court granted Harrop's motion to file his delayed appeal

in both cases. We also consolidated the cases for purposes of appeal.

         {¶ 11} Upon Harrop's unopposed motion, this court, on April 4, 2023, granted

Harrop's request to expand the record on appeal to include certain postconviction motions

and the trial court's decision on the motions, none of which are relevant to this appeal.

         {¶ 12} The following events and filings occurred after April 4, 2023. There is a

question as to whether these filings and entries are properly in our record on appeal. (The

documents were in the file sent to this court). Because we do not find that the documents

have any substantive effect on the outcome of the case, we will discuss them only for

purposes of providing context to an argument raised by Harrop on appeal.

         {¶ 13} On April 24, 2023, Harrop filed, in the trial court, an "emergency motion to

correct void PRC enhancement sanction prison term via recalculation." In it, he argued

that the court erred when it informed him that he had 929 days of PRC time to serve. He

wrote,

                In all actuality, Harrop completed his 3 year prison term on
                August 16, 2021. Thus under operation of law yielded Harrop
                with only 18 months of PRC time via enhancement which is
                1/2 of the 3 year prison term. Harrop only had 557 days.

                More alarming, this court never applied R.C. 2929.14
                mandates of properly crediting Harrop for the time Harrop
                spent on post release control prior to this court choosing
                enhancement.

         {¶ 14} Harrop requested a recalculation of his postrelease control judicial sanction

and asked that the trial court "forward its determination to O.D.R.C Bureau of Sentence

Calculation * * *."

         {¶ 15} On April 25, 2023, the trial court issued a decision denying Harrop's

emergency motion. The court noted that the case was on appeal to this court and

                                               -4-
                                                                    Fayette CA2022-12-016
                                                                            CA2022-12-017

therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion.

         {¶ 16} But on May 8, 2023, the trial court, in responding to Harrop's motion for an

appeal bond (which motion is not at issue in this appeal), responded to Harrop's argument

that the court had erred in calculating his PRC time. The court stated that, "it appears to

the trial court that the Defendant has incorrectly calculated the amount of time for the

enhancement of his sentence in his motion." The court did not further elaborate on this

issue.

         {¶ 17} Harrop has assigned two errors for our review.

                                    II. Law and Analysis

                                  A. Sentence Calculation

         {¶ 18} Harrop's first assignment of error states:

                TRIAL    COURT   ERRED    BY   MISCALCULATING
                APPELLANT'S POST RELEASE CONTROL SANCTION
                TIME AT CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING AND SENTENCING
                CALCULATION.

         {¶ 19} Harrop argues that the trial court erred in "miscalculating" PRC time. Harrop

states that the trial court erred when it informed him at the plea hearing that he had 929

days of PRC time remaining and that "[t]he amount of days are incorrect." Harrop states

that he was on postrelease control following a three-year-prison term. Harrop then states

that "This meant appellant had to serve 18 months in prison remaining if he violated the

terms of his PRC with a new felony contrary to the trial court's misspoken 929 days."

         {¶ 20} Harrop goes on to argue that he had 548 days of PRC time remaining,

minus 367 days he was "free" prior to his incarceration on the charges in Cases One and

Two. Thus, Harrop presumably believes that the largest sentence enhancement he

should have received was 181 days.

                                   1. Standard of Review

                                               -5-
                                                                   Fayette CA2022-12-016
                                                                           CA2022-12-017

      {¶ 21} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) defines the standard of review for felony-sentencing

appeals. State v. Day, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2020-07-042 and CA2020-7-043, 2021-

Ohio-164, ¶ 6. As applicable here, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides:

             The appellate court may take any action authorized by this
             division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the
             following:

             That the record does not support the sentencing court's
             findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division
             (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section
             2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;

             That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

                                       2. Analysis

      {¶ 22} Harrop argues that the trial court "miscalculated" his remaining PRC time

when it imposed a prison sentence enhancement in that amount. However, the record

reflects that the trial court did not calculate PRC time. Instead, the court's sentencing

entry ordered him to serve "the time remaining on post-release control as of the date of

this conviction." That is, the court did not specify the amount of remaining PRC time in

the sentencing entry.

      {¶ 23} It appears, based on the "notice of calculation of sentence" filed by ODRC,

that it was ODRC that calculated Harrop's PRC time. And ODRC calculated that Harrop

had 872 days remaining. We note that this number of days is similar to the estimated

number of days that the trial court indicated to Harrop would be imposed in the sentence

enhancement when it stated that "something like" 850 days would be imposed.

      {¶ 24} Regardless of who calculated PRC time, there is nothing in the record on

appeal, and Harrop cites nothing in the record, from which this court could determine the

accuracy or inaccuracy of the PRC time calculation.

      {¶ 25} There are only a few references to Harrop's PRC time in our record on

                                             -6-
                                                                 Fayette CA2022-12-016
                                                                         CA2022-12-017

appeal. For example, at Harrop's June 21, 2022, arraignment, the court and counsel

briefly discussed Harrop's parole status. The trial court briefly asked about an "improper

discharge of a firearm" offense. The prosecutor responded that it was "out of Highland

County." The trial court then remarked that "[h]e has 929 days as of May 24th of PRC,

unserved PRC time."

       {¶ 26} The next reference to PRC time was at the plea hearing. As discussed

above, the trial court informed Harrop that if it chose the sentence enhancement option

(Option Two), the court would impose an additional 929 days minus the days between

May 24, 2022, and the sentencing date. The court estimated that Harrop would have to

serve 850 days of PRC time but was non-committal as to that amount (stating "something

like that"). Harrop did not object to the amount of PRC time as described by the judge

and stated that he understood.

       {¶ 27} As we mentioned above, Harrop filed several postconviction motions

including his emergency motion to correct the "void" PRC enhancement. However, he

attached no materials related to the calculation of PRC time to any of these filings. In

fact, the first time he raised the PRC issue at all before the trial court was in the

"emergency motion," filed well after he noticed his appeal. In his "emergency motion,"

like his appellate brief, he simply made conclusory, unsupported statements concerning

the trial court's error in calculating PRC time.

       {¶ 28} This court has no information from which we could make any determination

as to whether the PRC time calculation was accurate or not. We know little about the

offense for which Harrop was on postrelease control. It may have been for improperly

discharging a firearm. We also do not know the period of postrelease control ordered in

that case. We do not know how much time Harrop spent under postrelease control for

                                               -7-
                                                                   Fayette CA2022-12-016
                                                                           CA2022-12-017

the earlier offense. The only thing we do know is that the trial court believed that Harrop

had 929 days (about two and a half years) remaining of unserved PRC time as of a certain

date, Harrop did not object to that number at the plea hearing and stated he "understood,"

and that number of days appears to have been corroborated by ODRC when they sent

the notice of the calculation of Harrop's prison sentence.

       {¶ 29} Harrop also cites no authority for his statement that because he served

three years in prison, "This meant appellant had to serve 18 months in prison remaining

if he violated the terms of his PRC." The calculation of a prison term for a postrelease

control violation is not half of the original prison sentence, but instead is the "greater of

twelve months or the period of post-release control for the earlier felony minus any time

the person has spent under post-release control for the earlier felony."                R.C.

2929.141(A)(1).

       {¶ 30} Harrop has not demonstrated error in the calculation of PRC time in his

appellate brief, or with reference to any evidence in the record. Harrop therefore has not

clearly and convincingly demonstrated that his sentence is contrary to law.             R.C.

2953.08(G)(2). We overrule Harrop's first assignment of error.

                         B. Jointly Recommended Sentences

       {¶ 31} Harrop's second assignment of error states:

              THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXECUTING                           AN
              UNLAWFUL JOINTLY RECOMMENDED SENTENCE.

       {¶ 32} Harrop argues that the court erred in "executing" what he refers to as an

"alternative jointly recommended sentence." He contends that in imposing one of the two

proposed alternative, jointly recommended sentences, the court violated the "plain

language of [R.C.] 2953.08(D)(1)." Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1),

              A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review

                                              -8-
                                                                      Fayette CA2022-12-016
                                                                              CA2022-12-017

              under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has
              been recommended jointly by the defendant and the
              prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing
              judge.

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) establishes a statutory limit on an appellate court's ability to consider

an appeal from a sentence. State v. Noling, 136 Ohio St.3d 163, 2013-Ohio-1764, ¶ 22.

If the conditions under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) are established, an appellate court lacks

jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Id.

       {¶ 33} Contrary to Harrop's argument, the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)

does not foreclose the possibility of an "alternative jointly recommended sentence." The

statute refers to "a sentence," that is, in the singular, but there is no explicit prohibition in

the statute on a defendant and the state agreeing to more than one jointly recommended

sentence.

       {¶ 34} Regardless, Harrop has not demonstrated how this alleged error prejudiced

him. Other than the PRC time issue he raises in his first assignment of error, he has not

challenged any other aspect of his sentence. He does not claim that either of the jointly

recommended sentences were contrary to law. And the state is not claiming that R.C.

2953.08(D)(1) precludes our review of his PRC time argument. Accordingly, we overrule

Harrop's second assignment of error.

       Judgment affirmed.

       S. POWELL, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

                                                -9-