State v. Whited
2019 Ohio 18
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Charles Whited pled guilty in 2014 to two fourth-degree drug-trafficking felonies and was sentenced to five years of community control; he was warned violations could lead to consecutive 18‑month prison terms (total 36 months).
- Whited incurred multiple community-control violations (2015, 2016; 2017; 2018); the court imposed various sanctions including jail, CCC placement, and ultimately revoked community control in April 2018 and imposed consecutive 180‑day terms (360 days total) with 28 days jail-time credit.
- Whited sought additional jail-time credit for several periods of confinement: pretrial detention after indictment (Feb 2014), a pretrial services sanction in June 2014, periods after arrests for each community-control violation, time served as sanctions, and time at a community correctional center (CCC) and treatment program.
- The State argued the issue was moot because Whited had been released (June 20, 2018) and that trial courts retain discretion under R.C. 2929.15(B)(3) to grant credit for time served under community-control sanctions.
- The trial-court record did not reliably show all confinement dates or the degree of restraint at CCC/treatment, so the exact amount of credit due could not be calculated from the record on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Whited's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jail-time-credit dispute is moot after Whited's release | Not moot; Whited remains in custody-equivalent status on transitional control and credit remains reviewable | Moot because Whited was released from prison before appeal | Not moot — transitional-control status qualifies as custody-equivalent, so controversy remains live |
| Whether R.C. 2967.191 mandates credit for all confinement arising out of the offense (including CCC/time served as community-control sanction) | R.C. 2967.191 is mandatory; Whited is entitled to credit for all confinement arising from the offense, including CCC and prior jail stays | Trial court has discretion under R.C. 2929.15(B)(3) to deny credit for community-control sanctions | R.C. 2967.191 prevails; mandatory credit for confinement arising from the offense is required; R.C. 2929.15(B)(3) cannot negate that mandatory rule |
| Whether time at CCC or treatment always qualifies as confinement for credit | Time in CCC/community-based correctional facility counts as confinement and merits credit (unless freedoms were not so restrained) | Such credit can be discretionary where confinement was part of a community-control sanction | CCC/time can qualify as confinement, but the trial court must determine facts (degree of restraint); remand required to make that factual finding |
| Whether the trial court properly calculated and entered total jail-time credit | Whited contended at least an additional 98 days were attributable and must be credited | State relied on trial-court discretion and the limited record | Trial court erred by failing to determine and include all credit; record insufficient to calculate total—case reversed in part and remanded for recalculation and, if needed, a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula, 132 Ohio St.3d 35 (court will treat jail-credit challenges as moot after sentence completion) (mootness principle discussed)
- State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d 476 (trial court determines days of confinement to be credited; appellate review permitted)
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (all time in a community-based correctional facility constitutes confinement for R.C. 2967.191)
- Hines v. State, 131 Ohio App.3d 118 (interpretation that mandatory credit statute controls over discretionary language in community-control statute)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (principles regarding sentencing and credit for confinement)