State v. Franklin
2011 Ohio 4078
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant-appellant Franklin was convicted of three counts of Trafficking in Cocaine and sentenced to three years of community control with intensive supervision.
- Franklin completed the SRCCC residential component and remained on intensive supervision.
- Probation was revoked and Franklin was resentenced to a total three-year prison term, with consecutive counts, and later credited for time served in Stark County Jail.
- Judicial release was granted, with Franklin placed on Intensive Supervision Probation, and later revoked, resulting in a further reduction/modification of his sentence.
- Following multiple credit determinations by the trial court and the DOC, Franklin sought additional jail-time credit for electronic monitored house arrest (EMHA) time as time served.
- The trial court denied Franklin’s second motion for jail-time credit for EMHA time; the appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit for EMHA time | Franklin argued EMHA time is confinement and should count toward jail credit. | State contends EMHA was a condition of judicial release, not confinement, so no credit. | Not entitled to credit; EMHA time was not jail time credit. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mann, 2004-Ohio-4703 (3rd Dist., 2004) (distinguishes community-control vs judicial-release frameworks)
- State v. Durant, 2006-Ohio-4067 (Stark App., 2006) (clarifies non-extension of original sentence under judicial release rules)
- State v. Mitchell, 2007-Ohio-6343 (Richland App., 2007) (limits on modifying original sentence post-release)
- State v. Nagle, 1986-Ohio-188 (Ohio Sup. Ct., 1986) (time in residential facility as probation condition not always creditable)
- State v. Napier, 2001-Ohio-646 (Ohio Sup. Ct., 2001) (community-based facility confinement can count as confinement under 2967.191)
- State v. Slager, 2009-Ohio-1804 (10th Dist., 2009) (confinement requires restraint on movement; cannot leave custody without permission)
- State v. Blankenship, 2011-Ohio-1601 (Franklin App., 2011) (confinement analysis for community-based facilities)