Court Opinion

ID: 9925773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 22:06:51.893177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.289704
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Harris, 2024-Ohio-214.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                  CASE NO. 2023-T-0061

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                  Court of Common Pleas

WILLIAM ARTHUR HARRIS,
                                                Trial Court No. 2019 CR 00819
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                            OPINION

                                     Decided: January 22, 2024
                                 Judgment: Reversed and remanded

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

William A. Harris, Sr., pro se, PID# A774-368, Grafton Correctional Institution, 2500
Avon Belden Road, Grafton, OH 44044 (Defendant-Appellant).

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, William Harris, appeals the trial court’s denying his “Renewed

Motion to Correct Jail-Time Credit Calculation.” After a review of the record, we find that

Appellant’s assignment of error has merit. This case is remanded to the Trumbull County

Court of Common Pleas to calculate the correct jail time credit to be afforded to Appellant.

        {¶2}     The facts and details surrounding Appellant’s jail time served prior to his

being sentenced are, at times, unclear from this record. However, the details that we can

discern from the record are provided below.
       {¶3}   On September 21, 2019, Appellant was arrested, jailed, and charged in

connection with, at least, four cases: 19CRA733, 19CRA752, 19CRB237 (“the Central

District case”), and the case underlying this appeal, 19CR819.             19CRA733 and

19CRA752 were both bound over in the underlying case.

       {¶4}   The record reveals that Appellant plead guilty in the Central District case.

On October 2, 2019, the court sentenced him in the Central District case to 30 days in

jail, suspended.

       {¶5}   Appellant has provided us with a booking sheet from the Trumbull County

Justice Center Sheriff’s Office. It reveals that Appellant was released on bond in the

underlying case on February 7, 2020. The docket reveals that “Sheriff Fees for Prisoner

Transport” were filed on January 27, 2020 when Appellant was transferred to court for a

pre-trial hearing. This indicates that Appellant was in jail at that time. On October 26,

2020, the court issued a capias warrant for Appellant’s arrest after he failed to appear for

arraignment on a charge of Aggravated Robbery in the underlying case. Appellant was

arrested pursuant to that warrant on October 28, 2020. On November 2, 2020, Appellant

entered a plea agreement, pled guilty to the charges, and the court sentenced him to

prison.

       {¶6}   The court’s judgment entry on sentence awarded Appellant 86 days of jail

time credit from September 21, 2019 to December 9, 2019, and October 28, 2020 to

November 2, 2020.

       {¶7}   Appellant has moved the trial court three times to correct his jail time credit

calculation. He sought an additional 90 days of jail time credit. The court denied each

motion.

                                             2

Case No. 2023-T-0061
       {¶8}    Appellant timely appeals the trial court’s denying his most recent “Renewed

Motion to Correct Jail-Time Credit Calculation.” He raises one assignment of error:

       {¶9}    “The trial court erred as a matter of law by refusing to correct the erroneous

jail time credit calculation * * *.”

       {¶10} R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) states in pertinent part:

                The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any
                error not previously raised at sentencing in making a determination
                [of jail-time credit] under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section. 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 division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section, and the court
                may in its discretion grant or deny that motion.

       {¶11} Thus, a trial court’s denial of a motion to correct jail time credit is reviewed

under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. McClafferty, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2020-

G-0238, 2020-Ohio-3238, ¶ 32.

       {¶12} An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to exercise sound,

reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2d Dist. Clark No. 09-CA-54,

2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.2004).

       {¶13} Appellant seeks additional jail time credit for the time he served.           He

specifically contends that he should have been awarded jail time credit from September

21, 2019 to February 7, 2020 – not December 9, 2019. He also asserts that he should

have been awarded credit from October 28, 2020 to November 17, 2020 – not November

2, 2020.

       {¶14} A criminal defendant “challenging a trial court’s finding of jail-time credit has

the burden to show an error in the jail-time credit calculation.” State v. Thomas, 10th Dist.

No. 12AP-144, 2012-Ohio-4511, ¶ 9. Further, “‘[i]f the appellant has failed to demonstrate

                                               3

Case No. 2023-T-0061
error and no miscalculation in the jail-time credit is apparent from the record, any claimed

error must be overruled.’” Id.

       {¶15} R.C. 2967.191(A) provides in relevant part:

              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, confinement for
              examination to determine the prisoner’s competence to stand trial or
              sanity, confinement while awaiting transportation to the place where
              the prisoner is to serve the prisoner's prison term * * *.

       {¶16} In other words, “jail-time credit is appropriate only when the facts and

circumstances giving rise to the incarceration are the result of the charge for which the

offender is eventually sentenced.” State v. Struble, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2005-L-115, 2006-

Ohio-3417, ¶ 11.

       {¶17} The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a defendant held on bond is

not entitled to jail time credit for presentence detention “if, during the same period of time,

he is serving a sentence on an unrelated case[.]” State v. Cupp, 156 Ohio St.3d 207,

2018-Ohio-5211, 124 N.E.3d 811, ¶ 4. See Struble at ¶ 11 (“there is no jail-time credit

for time served on unrelated offenses, even if that time served runs concurrently during

the pre-detention phase of another matter”).

       {¶18} After a review of the record before us, we find that the trial court erred in

awarding Appellant jail time credit until only December 9, 2019. Appellant’s booking sheet

from the Trumbull County Justice Center Sheriff’s Office plainly states that he was

released from jail in the underlying case on February 7, 2020, not December 9, 2019. We

know that Appellant was in jail at least until January 27, 2020 because of the trial court’s

docket showing a filing of “Sheriff Fees for Prisoner Transport.” Why was he in jail? We
                                              4

Case No. 2023-T-0061
know it was not on the Central District case because his sentence there was suspended

on October 2, 2019. There is no other discernable reason for his detention other than the

underlying case.

       {¶19} Appellee has not provided us with any documentation to rebut this

information.   Appellant has fulfilled his burden to demonstrate that the trial court

miscalculated his jail time credit. The trial court abused its discretion and Appellant is

therefore entitled to jail time credit for the time served between December 9, 2019 and

February 7, 2020.

       {¶20} Appellee contends that Appellant “agreed” to jail time credit ending on

December 9, 2019 because it was stated in his plea agreement. Appellee does not cite

any law, nor do we find any, supporting the conclusion that a defendant can “stipulate” to

a lesser amount of jail time credit.

       {¶21} We do not find Appellee’s argument persuasive. The Ohio Supreme Court

has held: “R.C. 2929.01(FF)'s indication that a stated prison term ‘includes any credit

received by the offender for time spent in jail awaiting trial, sentencing, or transfer to

prison’ is best understood as a simple acknowledgment that R.C. 2967.191 requires

application of all due jail-time credit and that a stated prison sentence must be shortened

by the amount of time spent in jail before entry into the state prison system.” State v.

Moore, 154 Ohio St.3d 94, 2018-Ohio-3237, 111 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 15. (emphasis added).

We also stress that “[t]he practice of awarding jail-time credit, although now covered by

state statute, has its roots in the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States

Constitutions.” State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 7. “The Equal

Protection Clause requires that all time spent in any jail prior to trial and commitment by

                                            5

Case No. 2023-T-0061
[a prisoner who is] unable to make bail because of indigency must be credited to his

sentence.” Id.

        {¶22} Appellee’s assertion that jail time credit can be “stipulated” to or “agreed”

upon does not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause’s requirement, neither does it fulfill a

trial court’s obligation to award credit for all days served in pre-sentence confinement.

        {¶23} Appellant next argues that he should have been awarded credit from

October 28, 2020 to November 17, 2020. There is nothing in the record showing that he

served uncredited jail time from November 2, 2020 to November 17, 2020. The court

sentenced Appellant on November 2, 2020. Any time served following that date was

served in connection with his sentence. He has not demonstrated that he is entitled to

additional jail time credit for the period between November 2, 2020 and November 17,

2020.

        {¶24} Appellant’s assignment of error has merit. He is entitled to additional jail

time credit for, at least, the time period between December 9, 2019 and February 7, 2020.

        {¶25} The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is reversed

and this case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the correct jail time credit to be

afforded to Appellant.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

concur.

                                             6

Case No. 2023-T-0061