Court Opinion

ID: 9902056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 20:09:14.232378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:43.806048
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Klorer, 2023-Ohio-4242.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                      WOOD COUNTY

State of Ohio                                    Court of Appeals No. WD-23-007

        Appellee                                 Trial Court No. 2020 CR 0414

v.

Richard Carl Klorer                              DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                Decided: November 22, 2023

                                             *****

        Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        David T. Harold, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Jeffrey P. Nunnari, for appellant.

        OSOWIK, J.

        {¶ 1} This is an appeal of a January 19, 2023 journalized judgment of the Wood

County Court of Common Pleas imposing a prison sentence of 18 months at the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections on appellant after a hearing on a

community control violation of an underlying conviction of Attempted Having Weapons

Under Disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.02, 2923.13(A)(3) and 2923.13(B), a felony

of the fourth degree.
         {¶ 2} We sua sponte place this matter on the accelerated calendar pursuant

to App.R. 11.1(A), and this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court. See

S.Ct.R.Op.3.1; App.R. 11.1( E); 6th Dist.Loc.App.R.12. For the following reasons, we

reverse and remand to the trial court for a proper computation of jail-time credit.

         {¶ 3} Appellant, Richard C. Klorer, sets forth the following sole assignment of

error:

         “THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY CALCULATE APPELLANT’S

CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED, THEREBY RENDERING HIS SENTENCE CONTARY

TO LAW.”

         {¶ 4} Klorer argues that he was previously confined on numerous occasions under

this case. Specifically, he argues that the record supports a finding of 108 days

confinement (using the formula in RC. 2949.08(D):

                13 days, from September 10, 2020, to September 22, 2020;

                4 days, from September 28, 2020, to October 2, 2020;

                5 days, from November 6, 2020, to November 11, 2020;

                61 days, from December 11, 2020, to February 8, 2021;

                6 days, from June 24, 2021, to June 29, 2021;

                10 days, from October 31, 2022, to November 9, 2022; and

                9 days, from January 11, 2023, to January 19, 2023.

2.
         {¶ 5} Appellee concedes error “in large part” but argues that the Ohio Department

of Rehabilitation and Corrections has already credited appellant with the proper number of

days of jail-time credit according to its website, which is not a part of the record of this

appeal. Based upon information reported on this website, appellee concedes that the proper

jail-time credit should reflect “99 days – not 61 days.”

         {¶ 6} Since appellee concedes error but relies on matters outside of the record of

this appeal for its computation of jail-time credit, we remand this case to the trial court for

a proper computation of jail-time credit, pursuant to R.C. 2949.08(D).

         {¶ 7} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Wood County Common Pleas

Court is reversed and remanded for the limited purpose for a proper computation of jail-

time credit, pursuant to R.C. 2949.08(D).

         {¶ 8} Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                            Judgment reversed
                                                                               And remanded

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                              ____________________________
                                                            JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
                                                  ____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J.                                       JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                  ____________________________
                                                            JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

3.
4.