Court Opinion

ID: 9961383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 16:13:57.839081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:41.365220
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hempstead, 2024-Ohio-1474.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                Plaintiff-Appellant,              :
                                                               No. 113051
                v.                                :

XAVIER HEMPSTEAD,                                 :

                Defendant-Appellee.               :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 18, 2024

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                             Case No. CR-21-664784-B

                                            Appearances:

                Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                Attorney, and Carl J. Mazzone, Assistant Prosecuting
                Attorney, for appellant.

                Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
                John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:

                Appellant, the state of Ohio (the “state”), appeals from the trial court’s

calculation of jail-time credit in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-664784-B. The state

raises the following assignment of error for review:
      1. The trial court erred when it applied 374 days of jail-time credit
      against a mandatory prison term for a firearm specification.

            After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we vacate the

trial court’s jail-time credit calculation and remand the matter for a limited

resentencing hearing.

                        I. Procedural and Factual History

            In   November      2021,   defendant-appellee,    Xavier    Hempstead

(“Hempstead”), was named in a five-count indictment, charging him with

aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), with one- and three-year firearm

specifications (Count 1); murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), with one- and

three-year firearm specifications (Count 2); murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B),

with one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 3); felonious assault in

violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), with one- and three-year firearm specifications

(Count 4); and felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), with one- and

three-year firearm specifications (Count 5).      The indictment stemmed from

allegations that Hempstead participated in the shooting death of Darius Cruz on

September 25, 2021.

            In June 2023, Hempstead accepted the terms of a negotiated plea

agreement with the state and pleaded guilty to a single count of involuntary

manslaughter, with a one-year firearm specification. At the time of sentencing, the

trial court ordered Hempstead to serve one year in prison on the firearm

specification, to run prior and consecutive to an indefinite prison term of three-to

four and one-half years on the underlying offense of involuntary manslaughter. The
trial court awarded Hempstead 374 days of jail-time credit.            Over the state’s

objection, the court further granted Hempstead’s motion to order the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) to apply the jail-time credit

to the one-year firearm specification.

             The state now appeals.

                               II. Law and Analysis

             In the sole assignment of error, the state argues the trial court erred

when it applied 374 days of jail-time credit against a mandatory prison term for a

firearm specification.

             We review felony sentences under the standard of review set forth in

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59

N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 21. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase,

reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence or vacate a sentence and remand for

resentencing if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) the record does not

support certain of the sentencing court’s findings or (2) the sentence is “otherwise

contrary to law.” “‘Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof

* * * which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as

to the facts sought to be established.’” State v. Franklin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

107482, 2019-Ohio-3760, ¶ 29, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120

N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

             Ohio law allows for the additional punishment of an offender when a

firearm is involved in the offense. R.C. 2929.14(B). This is accomplished through a
“specification,” which must be set forth in the indictment for the underlying felony.

See, e.g., R.C. 2941.141. As relevant here, an offender who had a firearm on his

person or under his control while committing the offense is subject to a one-year

prison term for the specification. Id.; R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a)(iii). A sentence for a

specification must be served consecutively to and prior to any sentence for the

underlying felony offense. R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a).

             The prison term for the firearm specification is mandatory.         R.C.

2929.14(B)(1)(a). Moreover, the term “shall not be reduced pursuant to section

2967.19 [petition for early release], section 2929.20 [petition for judicial release],

section 2967.193 [earned days of credit], or any other provision of Chapter 2967 or

Chapter 5120 of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b).

              In this case, Hempstead sought to have the time he spent in the county

jail credited toward his sentence pursuant to R.C. 2967.191 (“the jail-time-credit

provision”). (Tr. 87-88.) According to the provision,

      [t]he department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the
      stated prison term of a prisoner * * * by the total number of days that
      the prisoner was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for
      which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced, including
      confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial * * * as determined by
      the sentencing court.

R.C. 2967.191.

             The jail-time-credit provision plainly constitutes “any other provision

of Chapter 2967” as contemplated under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b). Recognizing this,

the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a defendant is “not entitled to have his [or
her] jail-time credit applied toward the portion of [the] sentence that was imposed

for firearm specifications.” State v. Moore, 154 Ohio St.3d 94, 2018-Ohio-3237, 111

N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 32. Applying the unambiguous holding of Moore, we find the trial

court’s application of jail-time credit in this case is contrary to law. Our conclusion

is consistent with prior decisions of this court. See State v. Mims, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 111780, 2023-Ohio-1044, ¶ 32; State v. Thomas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 111703, 2023-Ohio-1668, ¶ 13.

              The sole assignment of error is sustained.

              We reverse the trial court’s judgment, in part, and remand this matter

for a limited resentencing hearing.1 On remand, the trial court is directed to vacate

the portion of Hempstead’s sentence that applies jail-time credit to the mandatory

prison term imposed on the firearm specification and issue a new sentencing journal

entry that applies the credit to the underlying felony sentence.

              Judgment reversed in part and remanded.

      It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

      1 We decline the parties’ invitation for a de novo resentencing hearing where, as

here, the remaining portions of the defendant’s sentence complied with the applicable
sentencing statutes.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR