State v. Caccamo
2016 Ohio 3006
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Caccamo pleaded guilty in Nov 2012 to seven identity-theft felonies in Lake County and was placed on two years of community control with a 150-day local-jail term and restitution.
- In Jan 2014 he was arrested in Cuyahoga County on a new fifth-degree felony (passing bad checks) and held in the Cuyahoga County Jail from Jan 17 to Mar 4, 2014; he was then sentenced in Cuyahoga to eight months and transferred to the state prison to serve that term.
- Lake County probation issued a community-control arrest warrant (a “holder”) on Jan 22, 2014; that warrant was not executed until April 22, 2014, after Caccamo was conveyed from the state prison to Lake County.
- On May 12, 2014 Caccamo pled guilty to violating community control in Lake County; the court revoked community control and sentenced him to 26 months (to run concurrently with the Cuyahoga eight-month term) and awarded 33 days’ jail-time credit (12 days from 2012 and 21 days while in Lake County after transport).
- Caccamo filed a delayed appeal contesting the trial court’s jail-time credit calculation, arguing he was entitled to credit for the time held in Cuyahoga County (Jan 22–Apr 21, 2014) because of the Lake County detainer and also for days between sentencing and transfer back to the state prison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Caccamo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether days Caccamo was confined in Cuyahoga County on Jan 17–Apr 21, 2014 must be credited to his Lake County sentence | Credit limited to 33 days (12 pre-plea + 21 post-conveyance in Lake County) | Days detained in Cuyahoga while held on a Lake County detainer are confinement "arising out of" the Lake County offenses and must be credited to the Lake sentence, especially because sentences run concurrently | Reversed: days Jan 22–Apr 21, 2014 must be credited to Lake County sentence under Fugate principle; plain error justified correction |
| Whether trial court must include post-sentencing days (May 12–May 21, 2014) in its sentencing entry | Trial court not required to specify days after entry; sheriff forwards post-entry confinement days to DOC per administrative rule | Post-sentencing days between journal entry and transfer should be included in sentencing judgment or separately determined | Denied: trial court not required to list post-sentencing days in its judgment; sheriff/receiving authorities record and apply those days per Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fugate, 883 N.E.2d 1116 (Ohio 2008) (when concurrent sentences result from charges on which the defendant was held, jail-time credit must be applied to all concurrent terms to avoid denying credit for presentencing confinement)