Court Opinion

ID: 9352701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 15:08:58.967273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:50.749920
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Travis, 2023-Ohio-33.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                   TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                               :       JUDGES:
                                            :       Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                  :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                            :       Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-                                        :
                                            :
JEFFERY H. TRAVIS, II                       :       Case No. 2022 AP 08 0026
                                            :
        Defendant-Appellant                 :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                    Pleas, Case No. 2019 CR 080376

JUDGMENT:                                           Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   January 6, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                              For Defendant-Appellant

KRISTINE W. BEARD                                   JEFFERY H. TRAVIS, II, PRO SE
125 East High Avenue                                No. A770-273
New Philadelphia, OH 44663                          Grafton Correctional Institution
                                                    2500 South Avon Belden Road
                                                    Grafton, OH 44044
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 08 0026                                               2

Wise, Earle, P.J.

       {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Jeffery H. Travis, II, appeals the August 2, 2022

judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County, Ohio, denying his

motion to correct jail time credit. Plaintiff-Appellee is state of Ohio.

                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶ 2} On August 30, 2019, the Tuscarawas County Grand Jury indicted appellant

on one count of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01. Appellant was arraigned

on October 2, 2019. A transport was necessary because on said date, appellant was

incarcerated in the Stark County Jail on unrelated charges. Appellant pled not guilty and

was given a personal recognizance bond. He was discharged from the Tuscarawas

County Jail and remanded back to the Stark County Jail.

       {¶ 3} On March 4, 2020, appellant pled no contest to the charge. At the time of

his plea, appellant was incarcerated in the Grafton Correctional Institution after being

convicted of the unrelated Stark County charges. By judgment entry filed March 5, 2020,

the trial court found appellant guilty, and sentenced him to four to six years in prison, to

be served concurrently to the sentence out of Stark County. Appellant received two days

of jail time credit.

       {¶ 4} On December 22, 2020, appellant filed a motion for additional jail time

credit. In an attached letter, appellant argued he was entitled to 118 days of jail time

credit for being incarcerated during the pendency of the Tuscarawas case, although his

incarceration was due to the unrelated Stark County charges. By judgment entry filed

February 10, 2021, the trial court denied the motion.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 08 0026                                              3

      {¶ 5} On July 20, 2022, appellant filed a motion to correct jail time credit

calculation. Appellant argued Stark County correctly calculated his jail time credit and

that credit should be applied to his concurrent sentence out of Tuscarawas County. By

judgment entry filed August 2, 2022, the trial court denied the motion.

      {¶ 6} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for

consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:

                                             I

      {¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN REFUSING TO

PROPERLY CALCULATE JAIL-TIME CREDIT FOR A CONCURRENT SENTENCE, IN

VIOLATION     OF    BOTH     DOUBLE      JEOPARDY       PROTECTIONS        AND    EQUAL

PROTECTION OF THE LAW."

                                             I

      {¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in

refusing to properly calculate his jail time credit for concurrent sentences. We disagree.

      {¶ 9} The denial of a motion for jail time credit is reviewed under an abuse of

discretion standard. State v. Boyle, 5th Dist. Richland No. 22CA19, 2022-Ohio-3417, ¶

15, citing State v. Ragland, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2018-CA-11, 2018-Ohio-3292. In

order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was

unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

      {¶ 10} R.C. 2967.191 governs credit for confinement awaiting trial and

commitment. Subsection (A) states in part:
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 08 0026                                              4

              "The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the

       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, * * * [and] confinement while awaiting transportation to the

       place where the prisoner is to serve the prisoner's prison term, as

       determined by the sentencing court under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of section

       2929.19 of the Revised Code * * *.

       {¶ 11} Appellant asserts he has been continually incarcerated since August 23,

2019 (when he was arrested on the Stark County charges), and because he received a

four year sentence, his release date should be August 23, 2023. He states because the

trial court refused to correct his jail time credit, his release date is March 6, 2024,

constituting a sentence of four years and six months. Appellant argues jail time credit for

one offense must be applied to all offenses imposed concurrently, and the trial court's

error requires him "to serve multiple days of imprisonment for the same offense."

Appellant's Brief at 4.

       {¶ 12} In support of his arguments, appellant cites the case of State v. Fugate, 117

Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440. In Fugate, the Supreme Court of Ohio

held at syllabus: "When a defendant is sentenced to concurrent prison terms for multiple

charges, jail-time credit pursuant to R.C. 2967.191 must be applied toward each

concurrent prison term." The Fugate court explained at ¶ 11:
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 08 0026                                                  5

       when concurrent prison terms are imposed, courts do not have the

       discretion to select only one term from those that are run concurrently

       against which to apply jail-time credit. R.C. 2967.191 requires that jail-time

       credit be applied to all prison terms imposed for charges on which the

       offender has been held. If courts were permitted to apply jail-time credit to

       only one of the concurrent terms, the practical result would be, as in this

       case, to deny credit for time that an offender was confined while being held

       on pending charges. So long as an offender is held on a charge while

       awaiting trial or sentencing, the offender is entitled to jail-time credit for that

       sentence; a court cannot choose one of several concurrent terms against

       which to apply the credit.

       {¶ 13} In Fugate, the concurrent sentences were imposed at the same time for

multiple offenses, one a community control revocation and the other for a conviction

following a jury trial. The trial court had given jail time credit to the sentence for the

revocation, but did not give any to the other sentence. Fugate is distinguishable from this

case. The Stark County sentence was imposed in a different county, on unrelated

charges, prior to the sentence in this case.

       {¶ 14} In State v. Marini, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 09-CA-6, 2009-Ohio-4633, ¶

23, this court stated:

              When different courts impose sentences at separate times, the

       sentences at best are only partly concurrent, and there is no requirement
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 08 0026                                             6

      that courts arrange their cases in such a way as to maximize concurrency.

      State v. Carter, 2nd Dist. No. 1580, 2002-Ohio-6387, ¶¶ 8-10. It is one thing

      to hold, such as the Supreme Court did in State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d

      261, 883 N.E.2d 440, 2008-Ohio-856 that jail time credit earned in two

      cases must be applied to both cases when the sentences are imposed

      concurrently by the same court. It would be quite another to hold in the

      present case that confinement while serving non-concurrent jail time must

      be awarded as "jail time" to reduce a later-imposed felony sentence.

      {¶ 15} In State v. Smith, 71 Ohio App.3d 302, 304, 593 N.E.2d 402 (10th

Dist.1992), citing State v. Dawn, 45 Ohio App.2d 43, 340 N.E.2d 421 (1975), our

colleagues from the Tenth District stated:

      R.C. 2967.191 requires that jail credit be given only for the time the prisoner

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

      convicted and sentenced. It does not entitle a defendant to jail-time credit

      for any period of incarceration which arose from facts which are separate

      and apart from those on which his current sentence is based.

      {¶ 16} Appellant's incarceration on the Stark County charges does not apply to the

unrelated charge out of Tuscarawas County, despite the fact that the Tuscarawas County

sentence was ordered to be served concurrently. Jail time credit is given for the time a

defendant remains in jail on the related charge.       In the Tuscarawas County case,
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 08 0026                                             7

appellant was given a personal recognizance bond and "released." However, because

of his Stark County charges, he remained in jail on those charges. Appellant cannot

receive jail time credit on his Tuscarawas County charge from his Stark County

incarceration.    We do not find any violations of the double jeopardy and/or equal

protection doctrines.

       {¶ 17} Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

appellant's motion to correct jail time credit calculation.

       {¶ 18} The sole assignment of error is denied.

       {¶ 19} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County, Ohio

is hereby affirmed.

By Wise, Earle, P.J.

Hoffman, J. and

Wise, John, J. concur.

EEW/db