State v. Hargrove
2013 Ohio 1860
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Hargrove was indicted in 2007 for identity fraud and misuse of a credit card; he pleaded guilty to identity fraud in Oct 2008 and the remaining charge was dismissed.
- The trial court sentenced him to two years of community control with intensive supervision and advised that he had already served 426 days.
- In 2011–2012, he reportedly violated community control; detainers and new confinement occurred on other charges.
- At sentencing in Apr 2012, the court sentenced him to 18 months in prison and notified him he was entitled to 99 days of jail-time credit.
- On appeal, Hargrove argues the jail-time credit was inadequately calculated due to conflicting prior calculations; the State contends the record supports the 99-day credit.
- Ohio law provides jail-time credit for time confined arising out of the offense, with RC 2967.191 and post-2012 amendments clarifying trial-court duties; the issue was reviewed via plain error since no objection was raised at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jail-time credit was properly calculated | Hargrove argues improper calculation led to insufficient credit | State cannot explain the conflicting calculations and supports proper credit | Vacate and remand for proper jail-time-credit calculation due to plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (2008-Ohio-856) (establishes entitlement to jail-time credit for time confined arising out of the offense)
- State v. Smith, 71 Ohio App.3d 302 (10th Dist.1992) (credit for time confined while awaiting trial or related matters)
- State v. Dawn, 45 Ohio App.2d 43 (1st Dist.1975) (time confined while awaiting trial or related determinations)
- State ex rel. Williams v. McGinty, 129 Ohio St.3d 275 (2011-Ohio-2641) (addresses appellate review of jail-time-credit calculations)