State v. Weideman
2018 Ohio 3108
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Joseph Weideman pleaded guilty to an OVI with an accompanying R.C. 2941.1413 specification; other counts were nolled.
- Original sentencing awarded an aggregate eight-year term (5 years OVI + 3 years specification) with 84 days jail-credit; appellate remands corrected the OVI term to 36 months and confirmed a 3-year specification, to run consecutively (total six years), $1,500 fine, and 20-year license suspension.
- By the time of resentencing, Weideman had served 627 days in jail/prison on the instant matter; the trial court credited those 627 days against the 36-month OVI term only.
- Weideman filed a post‑sentence motion under R.C. 2967.191 asking the court to apply 627 days of jail‑time credit to each consecutive sentence (i.e., 627 days against both the 36‑month OVI term and the 3‑year specification).
- Trial court denied the motion; Weideman appealed, arguing he was entitled to credit on each stated term. The State argued the claim was barred by res judicata and that credit is not applied to each consecutive term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Weideman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 627 days of pretrial/jail custody must be applied to each consecutive sentence (i.e., credited against both the 36‑month OVI term and the consecutive 3‑year specification) | The doctrine of res judicata bars the claim; and jail‑time credit for consecutive sentences is not applied to each term — credit reduces the aggregate sentence | Weideman: R.C. 2967.191 requires reducing the stated prison term by days served arising out of the offense, so he is entitled to 627 days credit on each stated term | Court affirmed: res judicata did not bar the post‑sentence motion, but jail‑time credit is not applied separately to each consecutive term; credit reducing the total sentence is sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (Ohio 2008) (when sentences are consecutive, jail‑time credit applied to one term reduces the entire aggregate sentence and provides full credit due)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review and principles regarding sentencing review)
- State v. Thompson, 147 Ohio St.3d 29 (Ohio 2016) (post‑sentencing motions and sentencing‑entry requirements)