Court Opinion

ID: 9882515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:10:59.825038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:06.977747
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Mazur, 2023-Ohio-2717.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                             CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                              CASE NO. 3-22-32

        v.

MICHAEL J. MAZUR,                                        OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 17-CR-0278

                       Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded

                             Date of Decision: August 7, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Howard A. Elliott for Appellant

        Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-22-32

MILLER, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Michael J. Mazur (“Mazur”), appeals the August

18, 2022 judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas revoking his

judicial release and imposing a reserved prison sentence. For the reasons that

follow, we reverse.

       {¶2} On October 10, 2017, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted Mazur

on a single count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a second-

degree felony. At an arraignment held on October 16, 2017, Mazur pled not guilty

to the count in the indictment.

       {¶3} At a change-of-plea hearing held on December 19, 2017, Mazur

withdrew his not guilty plea and pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement, entered a

guilty plea to the count in the indictment. The trial court accepted Mazur’s guilty

plea, found him guilty, and proceeded directly to sentencing where it imposed a

jointly-recommended sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

       {¶4} On January 30, 2018, Mazur filed a motion for judicial release. After a

hearing held on March 9, 2018, the trial court granted Mazur judicial release. The

trial court placed Mazur on a period of five years of community control with the

special condition that Mazur complete a mental-health assessment and complete any

recommended treatment. The trial court also reserved jurisdiction to reimpose the

                                        -2-
Case No. 3-22-32

remainder of Mazur’s prison sentence in the event he violates the terms of his

community control.

       {¶5} A motion was filed on August 29, 2018 requesting the trial court issue

an order requiring Mazur to show cause why his judicial release should not be

revoked. The motion alleged Mazur violated the terms of his judicial release by

consuming alcohol and using marijuana. At an initial hearing held on September

17, 2018, Mazur entered a denial to the alleged violation.

       {¶6} At a hearing held on October 4, 2018, Mazur withdrew his denial and

entered an admission to the violation of his judicial release conditions. The trial

court determined Mazur had violated the conditions of his judicial release but

continued Mazur on community control with the special condition that he complete

a drug and alcohol treatment program through the Volunteers of America

(“V.O.A.”). In the attendant judgment entry, the trial court stated that “if Mazur

leave[s] [the] V.O.A. without authorization[,] including failure to return after being

granted temporary leave, that will constitute a violation of [R.C. 2921.34], Escape,

and will cause an independent subsequent prosecution.” (Doc. No. 29). The

judgment entry also specified that if a V.O.A. treatment program is not available,

Mazur shall successfully complete a drug and alcohol treatment program approved

by the probation department. (Id.).

                                         -3-
Case No. 3-22-32

       {¶7} On July 13, 2022, a motion was filed requesting the trial court issue an

order requiring Mazur to show cause why his community control should not be

revoked. Specifically, the motion stated Mazur failed to report to his probation

officer in January 2022, February 2022, and March 2022. Accordingly, the motion

alleged Mazur had absconded from supervision and that his whereabouts had been

unknown for 169 days. At an initial hearing held the following day, Mazur entered

a denial to the alleged violation.

       {¶8} At a hearing held on August 18, 2022, Mazur entered an admission to

the allegations set forth in July 13, 2022 filing. Consequently, the trial court found

Mazur had violated the terms of his judicial release community control. The trial

court proceeded immediately to sentencing where it terminated Mazur’s community

control and reimposed his four-year prison sentence.

       {¶9} Mazur filed a notice of appeal on September 14, 2022. He raises two

assignments of error, which we address together.

                             First Assignment of Error

       It was error for the Trial Court to not conduct an evidentiary
       hearing concerning whether the imposition of the community
       control sanction upon the Defendant that he must enter in to and
       remain [until] discharge in the V.O.A. program for which the
       Court admonished that the Defendant-Appellant would be
       subject to a prosecution for escape under Ohio Revised Code
       section 2921.34 should he leave the facility, such that there is
       sufficient of a confinement so as to trigger the Defendant-
       Appellant’s right for credit for time served for his time in the
       program.

                                         -4-
Case No. 3-22-32

                           Second Assignment of Error

       When a Trial Court revokes community control conditions of an
       offender who had previously been granted judicial release it is
       error for the Trial Court to reimpose the original prison sentence
       without reserving therefrom time previously served in prison on
       that sentence requiring that the matter be remanded to the Trial
       Court for resentencing.

       {¶10} In his first assignment of error, Mazur argues the trial court did not

properly impose jail time credit. In his second assignment of error, Mazur argues

the trial court erred by reimposing his full original prison sentence without reducing

it by the time he previously served on that sentence.

                             Award of Jail-Time Credit

       {¶11} The practice of awarding jail-time credit is rooted in the Equal

Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, though it is now

addressed in Ohio state statute. State v. Carpenter, 4th Dist. Meigs No. 16CA11,

2017-Ohio-9038, ¶ 25. One of these statutes, R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i), provides:

       [I]f the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing that a
       prison term is necessary or required, the court shall * * *:

       ***

       Determine, notify the offender of, and include in the sentencing entry
       the total number of days, including the sentencing date but excluding
       conveyance time, that the offender has been confined for any reason
       arising out of the offense for which the offender is being sentenced
       and by which the department of rehabilitation and correct must reduce
       the definite prison term imposed on the offender as the offender’s
       stated prison term * * *.

                                         -5-
Case No. 3-22-32

Thus, under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i), trial courts have a duty to calculate jail-time

credit at the time of sentencing. State v. Baker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102232,

2015-Ohio-3232, ¶ 14.

       {¶12} Here, in the trial court’s August 18, 2022 judgment entry, Mazur was

awarded 131 days of jail-time credit. (Doc. No. 38). Mazur does not contest the

131 days of credit given for his term of local incarceration. Rather, Mazur argues

the trial court erred by not granting additional jail-time credit for time spent in the

drug-and-alcohol treatment program ordered by the trial court in its October 4, 2018

judgment entry. However, at the revocation hearing, Mazur did not raise any

argument regarding jail-time credit. Nor did he request a hearing under R.C.

2929.19(B)(2)(g)(ii), which provides that in calculating the number of days of jail-

time credit, if any, to which the defendant is entitled, “the court shall consider the

arguments of the parties and conduct a hearing if one is requested.” As a result,

Mazur has forfeited all but plain error. Carpenter at ¶ 32; State v. Gordon, 9th Dist.

Summit No. 28331, 2017-Ohio-7147, ¶ 38.

       {¶13} Mazur alleges that the V.O.A. program he was ordered to complete in

the August 18, 2022 judgment entry constituted confinement for the purpose of R.C.

2967.191. The Revised Code does not define the term “confined” in R.C. 2967.191

or 2949.08(B). State v. Bowling, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2017-02-020, CA2017-

02-021, and CA2017-03-032, 2017-Ohio-8539, ¶ 14. “Thus, the calculation of jail-

                                         -6-
Case No. 3-22-32

time credit has been subject to much interpretation.”        Id.   However, courts

interpreting the Ohio Supreme Court’s guidance have determined that

“‘confinement’ requires such a restraint on the defendant’s freedom of movement

that he cannot leave official custody of his own volition.” State v. Blankenship, 192

Ohio App.3d 639, 2011-Ohio-1601, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.).

       {¶14} However, based on the record before us, we do not find that the trial

court committed plain error by not granting Mazur jail-time credit for the time spent

in the V.O.A. program. “Under Ohio law there is no statutory requirement that

provides that trial courts credit time spent in a rehabilitation facility against any

sentence originally imposed.” State v. Osborn, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-05-35, 2006-

Ohio-1890, ¶ 19, citing State v. Nagle, 23 Ohio St.3d 185 (1986). “[T]he trial court

‘“must review the nature of the program to determine whether the restrictions on the

participants are so stringent as to constitute “confinement” as contemplated by the

legislature.”’” Id. at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Crumpton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

82502, 2003-Ohio-7063, ¶ 9, citing State v. Barkus, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2002

CA 0052, 2003-Ohio-1757.

       {¶15} As Mazur acknowledges in his appellate brief, the information

contained in the record relating to the nature of the V.O.A. treatment program is

“scant.” However, at the August 18, 2022 hearing, the trial court did address the

nature of the V.O.A. program and specified that it is “not a lockdown facility.”

                                         -7-
Case No. 3-22-32

(Aug. 18, 2022 Tr. at 14). Neither the defendant nor his trial counsel lodged an

objection to this characterization of the program. Furthermore, Mazur is not

necessarily foreclosed from making an argument at a later date that the trial court

miscalculated the number of days of jail-time credit to which he is entitled.

Specifically, R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) provides:

        The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any
        error not previously raised at sentencing in making a determination
        under [R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i)]. The offender may, at any time after
        sentencing, file a motion in the sentencing court to correct any error
        made in making a determination under [R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i)],
        and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that motion.

Thus, under these circumstances, we do not find the trial court committed plain

error. See Osborn at ¶ 23.

        {¶16} Mazur’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                             Imposition of Prison Sentence

        {¶17} In his second assignment of error, Mazur argues the trial court erred

by reimposing the entire original sentence.

        {¶18} R.C. 2929.20, which governs judicial release, provides in pertinent

part:

        If the court grants a motion for judicial release under this section, the
        court shall order the release of the eligible offender * * *, shall place
        the eligible offender under an appropriate community control
        sanction, under appropriate conditions, and under the supervision of
        the department of probation serving the court and shall reserve the
        right to reimpose the sentence that it reduced if the offender violates
        the sanction.

                                          -8-
Case No. 3-22-32

R.C. 2929.20(K). Accordingly, an offender, like Mazur, who has been granted

judicial release “‘“has already served a period of incarceration, and the remainder

of that prison sentence is suspended pending either the successful completion of a

period of community control or the [offender’s] violation of a community control

sanction.”’” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Foust, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-27, 2022-

Ohio-3187, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Davis, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-21-03, 2021-Ohio-

3790, ¶ 5, quoting State v. Alexander, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-07-45, 2008-Ohio-

1485, ¶ 7. “While out on judicial release, if ‘an offender violates his community

control requirements, the trial court may reimpose the original prison sentence and

require the offender to serve the balance remaining on the original term.’” State v.

Phipps, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-20-07, 2021-Ohio-258, ¶ 22, quoting State v.

Mann, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-03-42, 2004-Ohio-4703, ¶ 8.

       {¶19} However, at the August 18, 2022 hearing revoking Mazur’s judicial

release, the trial court stated it was “going to reimpose the four year prison sentence

in this particular case.” (Aug. 18, 2022 Tr. at 14). The trial court clarified that

Mazur “will get 131 days of credit for jail” and stated that “obviously all the time

[Mazur served in prison] will go towards [the sentence] also.” (Id.). The attendant

judgment entry states that the trial court “terminates judicial release community

control and sentences the Defendant to 4 years in prison on Count 1, with jail time

credit * * * in the amount of 131 days[.]” (Doc. No. 38). Accordingly, the record

                                          -9-
Case No. 3-22-32

indicates the trial court imposed the entire four-year prison term rather than the

balance of the prison term as required by R.C. 2929.20(K).

       {¶20} As this court recently held in State v. Foust, “it is our view that

requiring the trial court to reimpose only the balance of the previously imposed

prison sentence, as opposed to reimposing the entire original sentence and then

purporting to deduct credit for both prior ‘prison time’ served as well as prior ‘jail

time’ served * * * is more consistent with the language of R.C. 2929.20(K).” Foust

at ¶ 11. See State v. Locker, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-22-31, 2023-Ohio-2533, ¶ 19-

20. Additionally, requiring the trial court to reimpose only the remaining prison

term is more consistent with the trial court’s March 9, 2018 judgment entry granting

Mazur judicial release.

       {¶21} Accordingly, Mazur’s second assignment of error is sustained.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶22} Having found error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars

assigned and argued, we reverse the judgment of the Crawford County Court of

Common Pleas. We remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

                                                            Judgment Reversed and
                                                                 Cause Remanded

WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/jlr

                                        -10-