State v. Britton
2013 Ohio 1008
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Britton pled no contest to Aggravated Assault (felony, fourth degree) on Jan 29, 2009; court reserved 18 months prison to run consecutive to another case for a total 36 months.
- Britton pled no contest to Domestic Violence (felony, fourth degree) on July 16, 2009; sentenced to 18 months prison consecutive to other cases for an aggregate 54 months.
- Community control was imposed with a reserved prison term; Britton’s term could be reinstated if he violated, and he was placed on community control with conditions.
- On Dec 22, 2009, the trial court granted judicial release, suspended the balance of the prison term, and placed Britton back on community control for four years, including mandatory attendance at the SEARCH program.
- On Mar 28, 2011, Britton pleaded guilty to Trafficking in Marijuana (felony, fifth degree) and received six months in prison to be served consecutively, increasing aggregate prison time; on the same date he admitted to violating community control, with the balance of the reserved term reinstated and jail-time credit of 560 days entered.
- On Jun 28, 2012, Britton, pro se, moved for jail time credit, seeking 450 additional days for time in the SEARCH program; the trial court denied the motion on Jul 12, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Britton is entitled to additional jail-time credit for time in SEARCH. | Britton contends he did not receive credit for SEARCH time. | Britton asserts entitlement to 450 days for SEARCH participation. | Denied; res judicata and record evidence foreclose the claim. |
| Whether the trial court's jail-time credit calculation was correct. | State contends credit was properly calculated. | Britton argues miscalculation or omission of SEARCH days. | Res judicata bars review of the request; no demonstrated mathematical error in record. |
| Whether res judicata precludes Britton’s jail-time credit motion. | State relies on final conviction judgment to bar new claims. | Britton failed to challenge at sentencing/direct appeal; motion seeks additional relief. | Res judicata bars the motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata and jail-time credit principles)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (scope of review and final judgments; double jeopardy notions in sentencing)