State v. Lynch , 2022 Ohio 4706 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Lynch, 2022-Ohio-4706.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
:
MARK A. LYNCH : Case No. 2022 CA 00006
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2017 CR 0133
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 27, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
BRIAN T. WALTZ BRIAN A. SMITH
239 West Main Street, Suite 101 123 South Miller Road, Suite 250
Lancaster, OH 43130 Fairlawn, OH 44333
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00006 2
Wise, Earle, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Mark Lynch appeals the October 1, 2021 judgment of
the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas partially denying his motion for jail-time
credit. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} This case arose in in December of 2016 when Appellant, who was 34-years
old at the time, transported a 14-year-old girl from Ohio to Iowa where he engaged in
sexual acts with the girl. The state of Ohio caused a warrant to be issued on December
12, 2016 and Appellant was arrested in Floyd County Iowa the same day. Appellant faced
charges in both Iowa and Ohio.
{¶ 3} On January 18, 2017 the state of Ohio recalled its warrant and dismissed
the charges. On March 27, 2017 the Fairfield County Grand Jury issued a 12-count
indictment charging Appellant with various crimes related to his conduct with the child
victim. A warrant issued with the indictment. On April 6, 2017, Appellant turned himself in
to the Fairfield County Jail. On April 17, 2017, he posted bond and was released.
{¶ 4} On November 20, 2017, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to the indictment.
On December 4, 2017 Appellant was sentenced to 8 years incarceration. At that time, he
was credited with 48 days jail-time credit which included time he was held in Iowa from
his initial arrest until the matter was dismissed.
{¶ 5} On September 7, 2021, Appellant filed a Motion for Jail Credit requesting
80 days of jail-time credit. Relevant to this appeal, Appellant requested 60 days jail-time
credit for the time he spent in the Floyd County Iowa jail and for the time he spent in the
Fairfield County Jail after sentencing and awaiting transport to prison. On October 1,
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00006 3
2021, the trial court granted Appellant's motion in part by adding 8 days of jail-time credit
for the period of time Appellant spent in the Fairfield County Jail after sentencing awaiting
transport to the institution.
{¶ 6} Appellant timely file an appeal and the matter is now before this court for
consideration. He raises one assignment of error as follows:
I
{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PARTIALLY DENYING APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR JAIL CREDIT AND AWARDING HIM 56 DAYS OF JAIL TIME CREDIT,
RATHER THAN THE 80 DAYS REQUESTED, IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2967.191 AND
APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION
2 OF THE CONSTITUTION."
{¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
partially denying his motion for jail-time credit. We disagree.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) provides in pertinent part:
The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any
error not previously raised at sentencing in making a determination
[of the appropriate jail-time credit]. The offender may, at any time
after sentencing, file a motion in the sentencing court to correct any
error made in making a determination [of the appropriate jail-time
credit], and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that motion.
* * * *.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00006 4
{¶ 10} The trial court has continuing jurisdiction to consider "any" and "all" jail-time
credit errors which includes both mathematical and legal errors. State v. Copas, 2015-
Ohio-5362, 49 N.E.3d 755, ¶ 12 (4th Dist.); State v. Quarterman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
101064, 2014-Ohio-5796, ¶ 8; State v. Inboden, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 14AP-312 &
14AP-317, 2014-Ohio-5762, ¶ 7-8.
{¶ 11} If, as is the case here, a jail-time credit argument is not raised on direct
appeal, it can still be raised later by way of a motion to correct jail-time credit. When the
matter is raised later, the grant or denial of a motion for jail-time credit is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. State v. Fisher, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-402, 2016-Ohio-8501,
¶ 9. In order to find an abuse of discretion, the reviewing court must determine that 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, 219, 450 N.E.2d
1140 (1983).
{¶ 12} The parties do not dispute that Appellant was arrested and jailed in Floyd
County Iowa on a Fairfield County warrant from December 12, 2016 to January 18,
2017. On January 18, 2017, Fairfield County Municipal Court dismissed the case
without prejudice. For reasons we cannot verify in the record, Appellant was held in jail
in Floyd County Iowa until February 10, 2017. According to the state Appellant had
pending charges in Iowa brought by authorities of that state, and Appellant does not
deny he was convicted of crimes in Iowa. In any event, there is no indication on the
record to support a finding that Appellant was being held on any Ohio charges after
January 18, 2017.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00006 5
{¶ 13} Appellant was indicted in Fairfield County on March 27, 2017. He turned
himself in on April 6, 2017 and posted bond on April 17, 2017.
{¶ 14} On December 4, 2017, after pleading guilty to the indictment, Appellant was
sentenced and ordered to report to the Fairfield County Jail the same day to await
transport to the institution.
{¶ 15} Appellant challenges two calculations; the time he spent in the Floyd County
Jail after Fairfield County dismissed charges against him, and one day from December 4,
2017 through December 13 2017 which he argues the trial court failed to credit.
{¶ 16} According to Appellant he is entitled to additional jail-time credit from
January 18, 2017 through February 10, 2017, the time he was held in Floyd County after
the Fairfield County Municipal Court dismissed the charges against him. However,
nothing in the record supports a finding that Appellant was being held during that time on
the instant matter and both parties suggest Appellant had pending charges in Iowa.
Appellant has therefore failed to show an abuse of discretion.
{¶ 17} As for the one extra day Appellant argues he is entitled to after sentencing
and before transport to prison, we note the trial court provided no calculation or dates for
the eight days it credited Appellant for that time period. Appellant's argument here on
appeal assumes he was taken into custody immediately after sentencing and that he
spent more than half the day incarcerated. The only evidence in the record as to when
Appellant could have arrived at the Fairfield County Jail to begin his sentence does not
indicate he was immediately incarcerated. So too, there is no transcript of the sentencing
hearing. The record does contain an entry titled Temporary Commitment filed on
December 4, 2017 which ordered Appellant to report to the Fairfield County Jail on
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00006 6
December 4, 2017 to begin serving his sentence. Nothing in the record indicates if or
when Appellant arrived that day to begin his sentence. We therefore find Appellant has
failed to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion.
{¶ 18} For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, P.J.
Wise, John, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
EEW/rw