2021 Ohio 3202
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Collier was indicted on multiple theft, forgery, and money-laundering counts, pled guilty to a subset, and was originally sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling six years.
- This court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make required findings for consecutive terms; on remand Collier received an agreed three-year concurrent sentence.
- By resentencing, Collier had served ~12 days in county jail pretrial and 438 days in ODRC custody after the original sentence; she moved (unopposed) for jail-time credit and the trial court awarded 450 days total (including the 438 ODRC days).
- The state sought correction (nunc pro tunc) and appealed with leave, arguing the trial court erred by including post‑sentence ODRC time in its jail‑credit calculation in violation of R.C. 2967.191 and 2929.19.
- The appellate court considered plain‑error review (state had forfeited objection at trial), analyzed the statutory scheme and ambiguity created by repeal/replacement of a provision, and concluded the trial court erred by including time served in ODRC custody.
- Judgment: reversed and remanded for recalculation of jail‑time credit excluding time served in ODRC custody; court noted ODRC, not the sentencing court, must reduce the stated prison term for prior ODRC custody arising from the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may include time a defendant served in ODRC custody (post‑sentence) when calculating jail‑time credit at resentencing | The trial court plain‑errored by including 438 days in ODRC custody; R.C. 2967.191 and 2929.19 allocate credit for ODRC custody to the department and prohibit trial courts from including ODRC time; inclusion risks double credit | Trial court must include all days confined arising out of the offense (including ODRC time) and the statutory text only excludes ODRC time for prior offenses; award was unopposed so proper | Reversed: sentencing court erred. R.C. 2967.191 assigns reduction for time served in ODRC custody to the department; trial court must exclude ODRC custody time from its jail‑credit calculation and remand to recalc |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 873 N.E.2d 306 (2007) (plain‑error test: appellant must show that, but for the error, the outcome would clearly have been different)
- State ex rel. Fraley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 161 Ohio St.3d 209, 161 N.E.3d 646 (2020) (ODRC is responsible for calculating and applying reductions for time a prisoner previously served in ODRC custody; it is not required to correct trial‑court miscalculations)