State v. Fisher
2016 Ohio 8501
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Michael A. Fisher pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary on Jan. 29, 2014 and was sentenced on Mar. 12, 2014 to a total of 4½ years (some sentences consecutive).
- On Apr. 30, 2015 the trial court granted judicial release and its entry listed a combined "credit" figure (159 days jail + 225 days prison = 384 total) in the decision granting release.
- After Fisher violated community control, the court resentenced him on Dec. 4, 2015 and the judgment entry stated Fisher had 550 days of jail credit and directed certification to the Ohio DRC; it also allowed credit for additional time awaiting transport.
- Fisher moved to correct jail-time credit (May 2016), arguing the court failed to credit him for all days he spent in DRC custody between conviction and judicial release (he asserted ~402–414 prison days) and asked to increase credit from 550 to 711 days.
- The trial court denied the motion, noting the credit amount had been agreed to by defense counsel and properly calculated; Fisher appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fisher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Fisher's motion to correct jail-time credit by excluding days Fisher spent in DRC custody before judicial release | The trial court's jail-time credit calculation was correct and had been agreed to by defense counsel; denial was within discretion | Fisher argued the court should have included all days he spent in DRC custody (Mar 12, 2014–Apr 30, 2015) in the jail-time credit calculation | Affirmed. Court held prior days served in DRC ("prison time") are not includable in the sentencing court's jail-time credit calculation; denial was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d 476 (Ohio 2003) (sentencing court determines jail-time credit; DRC must apply reductions required by statute)
Notes: The court relied on statutory distinctions between "jail" (local confinement) and "prison" (DRC custody) and on R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) and R.C. 2967.191 to explain that sentencing courts may not count prior DRC custody days as part of the "jail-time" credit; any adjustment for prior DRC custody is DRC's duty when computing release dates.