State v. Quarterman , 2014 Ohio 5796 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-5796.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 101064
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ALLEN QUARTERMAN
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-11-555106-A
BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Stewart, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 31, 2014
FOR APPELLANT
Allen Quarterman, pro se
4314 East 160th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44108
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Joseph J. Ricotta
Brett Hammond
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ON RECONSIDERATION1
1
The announcement of decision, State v. Quarterman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101064,
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Sua sponte this court reconsiders its decision in State v. Quarterman, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 101064, 2014-Ohio-4928, and affirms the trial court’s judgment.
{¶2} In November 2011, Quarterman pleaded guilty to one count each of burglary and
domestic violence, and the court sentenced him to four years of community control sanctions
(“probation”). The terms of his probation included a “no contact” order prohibiting Quarterman
from contacting the victims, regular drug testing, the attainment and maintenance of verifiable
employment, and the completion of an inpatient drug-treatment program. Quarterman
completed an inpatient drug-treatment program but failed to comply with the other terms of his
probation.
{¶3} The court held probation violation hearings on each of Quarterman’s probation
violations and continued Quarterman’s probation four times. Quarterman’s violations included
contacting the victims in violation of the “no contact” order, testing positive for cocaine a few
times, and violating his electronic monitoring program. After a hearing on the fifth probation
violation, the court revoked Quarterman’s probation and sentenced him to 18 months in prison.
The journal entry, dated July 8, 2013, states that Quarterman was to be given 135 days of
jail-time credit.
{¶4} On August 30, 2013, Quarterman filed a motion for jail-time credit requesting 274
days of jail-time credit. The trial court granted the motion in part and stated in its journal entry
that:
2014-Ohio-4928, released November 6, 2014, is hereby vacated. This opinion, issued upon
reconsideration, is the court’s journalized decision in this appeal. See App.R. 22(C); see also
S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01.
Defendant is not to be given any jail time credit for inpatient drug treatment.
Defendant is to be given an additional seven days of Cuyahoga County jail time
credit for a total of 142 days of jail time credit.
{¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Quarterman argues the trial court erroneously failed
to give him jail-time credit for his time spent as an inpatient in a drug rehabilitation facility. He
contends he was entitled to the 62 days he spent in the facility because completion of the
inpatient-drug-rehabilitation program was a requirement of his probation.
{¶6} However, Quarterman has been released from prison. Therefore, any grant of
jail-time credit would not reduce the amount of time he would spend in jail, and his appeal is
moot. State v. Fitzgerald, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98723, 2013-Ohio-1893, ¶ 2, citing State ex
rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 6.
{¶7} We note, however, that R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii), as amended by H.B. No. 487 and
S.B. 337 of the 129th General Assembly, vests the trial court with “continuing jurisdiction to
correct any error not previously raised at sentencing” in the court’s calculation of jail-time credit
under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i). See State v. Lovings, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 13AP-303 and
13AP-304, 2013-Ohio-5328.
{¶8} Amended R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) marks a significant change in the law regarding
jail-time credit. Previously, inmates could only challenge errors in jail-time credit on direct
appeal unless the error consisted of a mathematical mistake in calculation rather than an
erroneous legal determination. See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 00 CA 2698,
2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5001 (Oct. 23, 2000). R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) now allows the court
to correct “any error,” regardless of whether the error involved a mathematical miscalculation or
an erroneous legal determination, i.e., whether the defendant was entitled to jail-time credit for
time served in an inpatient rehabilitation facility.
{¶9} Nevertheless, because Quarterman’s appeal is moot by virtue of his release from
prison, we overrule the sole assignment of error.
{¶10} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas
court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of
sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR