Bell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Bell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Rendered on December 20, 2011
Swope & Swope, Attorneys At Law, and Richard F. Swope, for appellant.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jennifer Anne Adair, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio.
BROWN, J.
{¶1} This is an appeal by plaintiff-appellant, Reamer Bell, from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio, overruling appellant‘s objections to a magistrate‘s decision and granting judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC“), on appellant‘s claim of false imprisonment.
{¶2} The following factual background is drawn from the magistrate‘s decision and record of exhibits following a hearing conducted before the magistrate. On June 5,
{¶3} On March 16, 1992, appellant was conveyed to DRC‘s Correctional Reception Center (“CRC“), along with copies of his indictments, sentencing entries, and sheriff‘s letters. According to that documentation, appellant was entitled to jail-time credit in case No. B91-3347 for time served from May 14 to June 17, 1991 (34 days), and from October 5, 1991 to March 16, 1992 (163 days), for a total of 197 days. The documentation also indicated that appellant was entitled to jail-time credit in case No. B91-7461 for time served from October 24, 1991 to March 16, 1992, for a total of 144 days. By the time appellant reached the institution, his 180-day definite sentence in case No. B91-3347, reduced by 197 days of jail-time credit, had expired.
{¶4} On September 28, 1992, appellant was furloughed, and, in February of 1993, he was granted his first parole effective March 1, 1993. On October 13, 1993, appellant was declared a parole violator at large (“PVAL“). He was arrested on December 19, 1993, but was restored to parole status on that same date. The Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA“) sanctioned appellant with “lost time” of two months and six days
{¶5} On April 27, 1994, appellant was again declared a PVAL; he was arrested on June 6, 2002, and his lost time was determined to be one month and nine days. Appellant‘s maximum release date was then recalculated to February 6, 2002. Appellant was returned to prison as a technical parole violator on August 2, 1994, and his parole was formally revoked following a hearing in August 1994. On June 29, 1995, appellant was again paroled. On December 6, 1995, appellant was declared a PVAL for the third time; he was arrested on January 3, 1996, resulting in lost time of 27 days.
{¶6} On February 24, 1997, appellant was paroled for the third time, and he was declared a PVAL for the fourth time on July 2, 1997. Appellant was restored to parole status effective October 9, 1997, but he was charged with an additional 99 days of lost time for the period between July 2, and October 9, 1997. The maximum expiration of his ten-year term was extended to June 13, 2002. Further, while on parole in October 1997, appellant was indicted on four new offenses in Hamilton County in case No. B97-07887. Appellant subsequently entered a guilty plea to two offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to a stated term of two years on each count, to be served concurrently, with 118 days of jail-time credit.
{¶7} On February 12, 1998, appellant was conveyed to CRC on case No. B97-07887, with a copy of the indictment and judgment entry, and a sheriff‘s letter providing that appellant was entitled to an additional eight days of jail-time credit for the period during which he had been in custody following his sentencing. The expiration of appellant‘s stated term was calculated to be October 8, 1999 (or two years with 126 days
{¶8} On January 7, 2003, appellant filed a complaint against DRC, alleging that his term of incarceration expired on October 22, 1998, but that DRC had wrongfully detained and imprisoned him until June 13, 2002. Appellant sought judgment in the amount of $500,000.
{¶9} On October 30, 2003, DRC filed a motion for summary judgment. In the accompanying memorandum in support, DRC argued that, pursuant to
{¶10} On January 29, 2004, the matter came for trial before a magistrate of the Court of Claims. The magistrate issued a decision on November 25, 2009, recommending that judgment be entered in favor of DRC. On February 11, 2010, appellant filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. On March 19, 2010, appellant filed supplemental objections. By decision and entry filed September 2, 2010, the Court of Claims overruled appellant‘s objections and rendered judgment in favor of DRC.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1:
THE TRIAL COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED BY FAILING TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE FOR OVER SIX (6) YEARS, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN INDIGENT PLAINTIFF TO PREPARE A SATISFACTORY AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO RULE 53, OHIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, TO PRESERVE HIS RIGHT OF APPEAL.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2:
THE TRIAL COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED IN CALCULATING JAIL TIME CREDIT, THE SUPREME COURT HAVING RULED IN STATE V. FUGATE, 117 OHIO ST.3D 261, 2008-OHIO-856, THAT WHEN SENTENCED TO CONCURRENT PRISON TERMS FOR MULTIPLE CHARGES, JAIL CREDIT MUST BE APPLIED TOWARD EACH CONCURRENT PRISON TERM.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3:
THE TRIAL COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED IN REJECTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT‘S CLAIM THE ADUILT PAROLE AUTHORITY ILLEGALLY REVOKED HIS PROLE IN EACH AND EVERY CASE BECAUSE THE PAROLE AUTHORITY FAILED TO FOLLOW LEGAL REQUIRE MENTS FOR NOTICE OF HEARING AND RIGHT OF HEARING WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4:
THE TRIAL COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED IN RULING THE ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY CAN ASSESS LOST TIME WHEN THEY FAIL TO FOLLOW THE LAW IN ADJUDICATING A PAROLEE AS A PAROLE VIOLATOR AT LARGE.
{¶12} Appellant‘s four assignments of error are somewhat interrelated, and will be considered together. Appellant‘s primary contention is that he was falsely imprisoned because DRC miscalculated his release date by failing to properly apply jail-time credit.
{¶14} Pursuant to
{¶15} We will initially address the issue raised under appellant‘s second assignment of error, in which he contends the Court of Claims and magistrate erred in failing to find that DRC denied him proper jail-time credit. More specifically, appellant
{¶16} Appellant‘s attempt to apply the holding in Fugate to support a claim of false imprisonment against DRC in the instant case is unpersuasive. As noted under the facts, according to the documentation received by DRC at the time appellant was transported to CRC, appellant was entitled to jail-time credit in case No. B91-3347 of 197 days, and jail-time credit in case No. B91-7461 of 144 days.
{¶17} The Supreme Court of Ohio has made clear that, while the APA “has a mandatory duty pursuant to
{¶18} In general, “the proper vehicle for challenging legal errors in the imposition of jail-time credit is via a direct appeal from the sentencing entry.” State v. Mason, 7th Dist. No. 10 CO 20, 2011-Ohio-3167, ¶13, citing State v. Parsons, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-1176, 2005-Ohio-457, at ¶7-8.1 Pursuant to
{¶19} Appellant‘s argument for application of the holding in Fugate, based upon his contention that the 197 days jail-time credit he received in case No. B91-3347 should have been credited against the concurrent sentences in those cases, is essentially a legal challenge to the sentencing entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and/or the sheriff‘s record. The record in this case does not indicate that appellant attempted to bring to the trial court‘s attention, either on direct appeal or otherwise, the
{¶20} This court has previously held that
{¶21} Under his third and fourth assignments of error, appellant argues that he was deprived of due process, including the right to notice and timely hearing, before being declared a PVAL. Specifically, appellant contends that the exhibits with respect to the 99 days added to his sentence on October 13, 1997 do not indicate that charges were filed and a hearing held. Appellant further argues that the exhibits submitted by the DRC are unclear, and do not refute his testimony that he was not afforded proper notice and hearing before being declared a parole violator.
{¶22} With respect to appellant‘s claimed due process violations, the Court of Claims properly held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider such arguments. “This court has consistently held that claims alleging violations of due process * * * are not actionable
{¶23} Appellant contends, under his first assignment of error, that this case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial because of delay by the Court of Claims in rendering a decision. Appellant maintains that the length of time between the trial of this matter before the magistrate, on January 29, 2004, and the magistrate‘s decision, rendered on November 25, 2009, adversely prejudiced him. Appellant argues that he was indigent, and had to rely on an affidavit of evidence to preserve his appeal right.
{¶24} Courts considering claims of prejudicial delay have considered whether the legal issues were complicated, and whether the trial court had a good understanding of the facts and legal issues. Cantwell Mach. Co. v. Chicago Mach. Co., 184 Ohio App.3d 287, 2009-Ohio-4548, ¶22. In Cantwell, this court held that a trial court‘s five-year delay
{¶25} As noted, appellant argues that the delay prejudiced his ability to prepare an affidavit of evidence, pursuant to
{¶26} Upon review, appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice. In appellant‘s post-trial memorandum, filed approximately two months after the trial conducted by the magistrate, appellant cited the relevant exhibits and testimony in support of his claims. Further, as in Cantwell, the issues before the court were not complicated, and the case did not involve a lengthy trial. Accordingly, the Court of Claims did not err in overruling appellant‘s objection challenging the length of time between the trial of this matter and the issuance of the magistrate‘s decision.
{¶27} Based upon the foregoing, appellant‘s first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
SADLER and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.
_____________________