State v. Murton
2017 Ohio 7949
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- From Dec 2012 to early 2015 Murton organized a juvenile theft/burglary ring; hundreds of thefts alleged (cars, homes, jewelry, electronics). He and an accomplice were heroin addicts and converted stolen goods to cash/drugs.
- A 15-count indictment (Case No. 15 C 0111) charged R.C. offenses including RICO-like pattern charge, multiple burglaries, breaking-and-entering, thefts, theft of drugs, and tampering. Murton pleaded guilty to 10 counts and to a community-control violation in a separate trafficking case (Case No. 15 C 0032).
- Murton spent multiple periods in custody: pretrial jail time, a stint in NEOCAP, and periods on bond; the PSI calculated 230 days of jail-time credit attributable to Case No. 15 C 0111.
- At sentencing (Sept. 29, 2016) the trial court imposed multiple terms: four consecutive 18-month terms for burglary, consecutive 12-month terms for breaking-and-entering, concurrent 12-month terms for some theft counts, 24 months for tampering (consecutive), and 11 months for theft of drugs (concurrent) — totaling ten years.
- At sentencing the court orally stated Murton was due 230 days credit, but the written judgment (and nunc pro tunc entry) awarded no jail-time credit. Murton appealed, challenging (1) lack of jail-time credit and (2) imposition of consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by failing to give jail-time credit | State: PSI overstated credit; some credited time related to separate case (NEOCAP) so only 85 days apply | Murton: 230 days as calculated in PSI and credited at sentencing should be applied to Case No. 15 C 0111; state waived objections | Court: Reversed and remanded — defendant is entitled to 230 days; trial court must journalize the credit |
| Whether consecutive sentences were improper | State: Consecutive sentences justified by duration, scope, and seriousness of crimes and defendant's history | Murton: Consecutive sentences disproportionate given drug-driven, non-violent nature; mitigation argued | Court: Affirmed — findings supporting consecutive terms were made and not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fugate, 883 N.E.2d 316 (Ohio 2008) (jail-time credit must be applied to all concurrent prison terms; courts cannot apply credit to only one concurrent term)