State v. Smith , 2022 Ohio 564 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Smith, 
    2022-Ohio-564
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
    BUTLER COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO,                                  :
    Appellee,                                :         CASE NO. CA2021-07-085
    :              OPINION
    - vs -                                                      2/28/2022
    :
    DEREK SMITH,                                    :
    Appellant.                               :
    CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    Case No. CR-2019-07-1071
    Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant
    Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
    Michele Temmel, for appellant.
    S. POWELL, J.
    {¶ 1} Appellant, Derek Smith, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of
    Common Pleas awarding him 148 days of jail-time credit rather than 230 days of jail-time
    credit after he pled guilty and was convicted of one count of improperly handling a firearm
    in a motor vehicle. For the reasons outlined below, we reverse the common pleas court's
    Butler CA2021-07-085
    decision and remand this matter for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc
    sentencing entry that properly reflects the amount of jail-time credit Smith was entitled to
    receive; 230 days of jail-time credit rather than 148 days of jail-time credit, a difference of
    82 days.
    {¶ 2} On June 30, 2019, Smith was arrested and held in the Butler County Jail on
    charges of having a weapon while under disability, improperly handing a firearm in a motor
    vehicle, carrying a concealed weapon, receiving stolen property, obstructing official
    business, and disorderly conduct. The following day, on July 1, 2019, Smith was arraigned
    in the Butler County Area II Court and bond was set at $10,000. The record is devoid of
    any evidence to indicate Smith posted the $10,000 bond.
    {¶ 3} On July 3, 2019, the Area II Court held a preliminary hearing and bound the
    charges over to the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for consideration by the Butler
    County Grand Jury.
    {¶ 4} On July 31, 2019, the Butler County Grand Jury returned an indictment
    charging Smith with single counts of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle,
    carrying a concealed weapon, obstructing official business, and disorderly conduct. Smith
    was subsequently arraigned in the common pleas court on August 5, 2019. Smith's bond
    was thereafter reduced from $10,000 to $5,000. Just like with the $10,000 bond, the record
    is devoid of any evidence to indicate Smith posted the $5,000 bond.
    {¶ 5} On September 23, 2019, Smith pled guilty to one count of improperly handling
    a firearm in a motor vehicle in exchange for the other three charges against him being
    dismissed. After Smith entered his guilty plea, the common pleas court scheduled the
    matter for a sentencing hearing to take place on October 28, 2019. The common pleas
    court also amended the $5,000 bond to an OR, personal recognizance bond. The record
    indicates Smith posted the OR bond later that day.
    -2-
    Butler CA2021-07-085
    {¶ 6} On October 28, 2019, the common pleas court sentenced Smith to a five-year
    community control term. The conditions of Smith's community control required Smith to
    serve 30 days in the Butler County Jail. The conditions of Smith's community control also
    required Smith to take corrective thinking classes, to be subject to drug and alcohol usage
    monitoring, and to obtain and maintain full-time employment, among others. The common
    pleas court further notified Smith that, as of that date, he had accrued 86 days of jail-time
    credit. This notice was later included in the common pleas court's October 29, 2019
    sentencing entry.
    {¶ 7} On February 11, 2020, a notice was filed with the common pleas court alleging
    Smith had violated the conditions of his community control by failing to report to his
    probation officer as ordered. The notice also alleged Smith had violated the conditions of
    his community control by being unsuccessfully terminated from his drug and alcohol
    treatment program and for failing to obtain and maintain full-time employment. The notice
    further stated that Smith was at that time being held in custody at the Butler County Jail.
    {¶ 8} On February 14, 2020, a common pleas court magistrate issued an entry
    finding there was probable cause to believe Smith had violated the conditions of his
    community control as alleged in the February 11, 2020 notice. Ten days later, on February
    24, 2020, the common pleas court provided Smith with another OR, personal recognizance
    bond. Smith posted the OR bond later that day.
    {¶ 9} On April 6, 2020, the common pleas court held a hearing and determined that
    Smith had violated the conditions of his community control as alleged in the February 11,
    2020 notice. However, instead of revoking Smith's community control, the common pleas
    court placed Smith on GPS monitored house arrest for 30 days. The common pleas court
    also ordered Smith to successfully complete an intensive out-patient program at Sojourner
    Recovery Services.
    -3-
    Butler CA2021-07-085
    {¶ 10} On September 25, 2020, a notice was filed with the common pleas court
    alleging Smith had violated the conditions of his community control because of him being
    arrested and charged with single counts of trafficking in drugs and driving under suspension.
    Just like the previous notice filed on February 11, 2020, this notice also stated that Smith
    was at that time being held in custody at the Butler County Jail.
    {¶ 11} On September 30, 2020, a common pleas court magistrate issued an entry
    finding there was probable cause to believe Smith had violated the conditions of his
    community control as alleged in the September 25, 2020 notice. Shortly thereafter, on
    October 8, 2020, Smith moved the common pleas court to provide him with yet another OR,
    personal recognizance bond. The common pleas court granted Smith's motion on October
    12, 2020. Smith posted the OR bond later that day.
    {¶ 12} On December 8, 2020, a motion was filed with the common pleas court
    requesting Smith's OR bond be revoked because of Smith being arrested and charged with
    single counts of failing to comply with a police officer, obstructing official business, resisting
    arrest, and having an open container in a motor vehicle. The common pleas court granted
    the motion that same day and ordered Smith be remanded into the custody of the Butler
    County Jail. Three days later, on December 11, 2020, a notice was filed with the common
    pleas court alleging Smith had violated the conditions of his community control based on
    him being arrested and charged with the four above named offenses.
    {¶ 13} On March 29, 2021, the common pleas court held a hearing and determined
    that Smith had violated the conditions of his community control for a second time. Upon
    making this determination, the common pleas court revoked Smith's community control and
    sentenced him to 18 months in prison, less 148 days of jail-time credit.
    {¶ 14} On June 4, 2021, Smith moved the common pleas court to recalculate its
    award of jail-time credit to include the days "that were not credited from prior to the original
    -4-
    Butler CA2021-07-085
    disposition of the case." The common pleas court denied Smith's motion in an entry filed
    on July 19, 2021. Smith now appeals the common pleas court's decision, raising the
    following single assignment of error.
    {¶ 15} THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO GIVE 148 DAYS OF JAIL TIME
    CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED WAS CONTRARY TO LAW.
    {¶ 16} In support of his single assignment of error, Smith argues the common pleas
    court erred by awarding him with 148 days of jail-time credit rather than 230 days of jail-
    time credit, a difference of 82 days. We agree.
    {¶ 17} "The Equal Protection Clause requires that all time spent in jail prior to trial
    and prior to commitment must be credited to the prisoner's sentence." State v. Dobbins,
    12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2019-04-061 thru CA2019-04-063, 
    2020-Ohio-726
    , ¶ 18, citing
    State v. Fugate, 
    117 Ohio St.3d 261
    , 
    2008-Ohio-856
    , ¶ 7. This principle is codified in R.C.
    2967.191(A). State v. McClellan, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2018-10-014, 
    2019-Ohio-5034
    ,
    ¶ 13. Pursuant to that statute, the department of rehabilitation and correction must 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 the prisoner awaited trial.
    {¶ 18} However, "[a]lthough the department of rehabilitation and correction 'has a
    mandatory duty pursuant to R.C. 2967.191 to credit an inmate with jail time already served,
    it is the trial court that makes the factual determination as to the number of days of
    confinement that a defendant is entitled to have credited toward his sentence.'" State v.
    Brown, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-08-082, 
    2021-Ohio-997
    , ¶ 12, quoting State ex rel.
    Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 
    98 Ohio St.3d 476
    , 
    2003-Ohio-2061
    , ¶ 7. "A trial court's
    failure to properly calculate an offender's jail-time credit and to include the amount of jail-
    time credit in the body of the offender's sentencing judgment amounts to plain error." State
    -5-
    Butler CA2021-07-085
    v. Edmonds, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-03-045, 
    2015-Ohio-2733
    , ¶ 9.
    {¶ 19} As noted above, to support his single assignment of error, Smith argues the
    common pleas court erred by awarding him 148 days of jail-time credit rather than 230 days
    of jail-time credit. The state concedes, and we agree, that based on the record properly
    before this court the common pleas court erred by awarding Smith with only 148 days of
    jail-time credit when it should have instead awarded 230 days of jail-time credit, a difference
    of 82 days. We reach this decision based on the following calculation:
    1. 86 days between June 30, 2019, the date of Smith's arrest,
    and September 23, 2019, the date Smith entered his guilty plea
    and was released on an OR bond, as confirmed by the common
    pleas court's October 29, 2019 sentencing entry;
    2. 14 days between February 11, 2020, the      date Smith was in
    custody at the Butler County Jail pursuant     to the first notice
    alleging Smith had violated the conditions     of his community
    control, and February 24, 2020, the date       Smith was again
    released on an OR bond;
    3. 18 days between September 25, 2020, the date Smith was
    in custody at the Butler County Jail pursuant to the second
    notice alleging Smith had violated the conditions of his
    community control, and October 12, 2020, the date Smith was
    once again released on an OR bond; and
    4. 112 days between December 8, 2020, the date Smith was in
    custody at the Butler County Jail after his OR bond was revoked
    by the common pleas court, and March 29, 2021, the date the
    common pleas court revoked Smith's community control.
    {¶ 20} When added together, this equates to a total of 230 days of jail-time credit
    that Smith was entitled to receive, not 148 days of jail-time credit as awarded by the
    common pleas court: (86 days + 14 days = 100 days) + (18 days + 112 days = 130 days) =
    230 total days. The common pleas court, therefore, erred by awarding Smith 148 days of
    jail-time credit rather than 230 days of jail-time credit. Accordingly, because we find error
    with the common pleas court's calculation of the days of jail-time credit Smith was entitled
    to receive, Smith's single assignment of error is sustained and this matter is remanded to
    -6-
    Butler CA2021-07-085
    the common pleas court for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry
    that properly reflects the amount of jail-time credit Smith was entitled to receive; 230 days
    of jail-time credit rather than 148 days of jail-time credit, a difference of 82 days.
    {¶ 21} Judgment reversed and remanded.
    PIPER, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
    -7-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA2021-07-085

Citation Numbers: 2022 Ohio 564

Judges: S. Powell

Filed Date: 2/28/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/28/2022