State v. Blankenship
192 Ohio App. 3d 639
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant-appellant Anthony Blankenship pleaded guilty to theft, a first-degree misdemeanor, on November 20, 2008; sentenced to 180 days in jail with jail days suspended and placed on probation for one year.
- Probation imposed conditions: obtain employment, pay restitution, and complete anger-management class.
- In June 2009, Blankenship stopped reporting to his probation officer, was declared an absconder, and probation was suspended.
- On March 31, 2010, probation was restored with a 90-day term of electronically monitored house arrest (EMHA) and a one-year probation extension.
- On May 21, 2010, Blankenship violated EMHA and other probation conditions, leading to a probation-revocation hearing on June 25, 2010.
- The court revoked probation, reimposed the 180-day jail sentence, and awarded 81 days of jail credit for time actually served; no EMHA credit was granted; Blankenship appealed with two assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EMHA time is creditable against jail time under R.C. 2949.08(C) | Blankenship argues EMHA is confinement and should count toward the jail term. | State contends EMHA is not confinement for time-served credit in misdemeanor cases. | EMHA is not confinement that requires credit against the jail term for misdemeanors. |
| Whether the trial court erred in the time-served calculation and clerical error | Blankenship contends total time served was 90 days but court awarded 81 days; original sentencing miscalculated. | State concedes potential remand to correct preexisting error. | Second assignment sustained; remand to correct the time-served calculation and revocation order. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nagle, 23 Ohio St.3d 185 (1986) (whether residential rehab as probation condition constitutes confinement for credit under 2949.08(C))
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (2001) (time spent in a community-based correctional facility can be confinement under 2967.191)
- State v. Slager, 2009-Ohio-1804 (10th Dist. 2009) (pre-arrest hospitalization not confinement for credit; hospital not secure custody)
- State v. Ober, 2004-Ohio-3568 (2d Dist. 2004) (house arrest not confinement under 2967.191 when less restrictive than Nagle)
- State v. Cowen, 2006-Ohio-3191 (2d Dist. 2006) (EMHA duration may exceed max jail term for offense if overall sanctions capped at five years)