State ex rel. Rickey Moody, Relator, v. Director, Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation, Respondent.
No. 23AP-303
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
May 16, 2024
2024-Ohio-1891
BOGGS, J.; LUPER SCHUSTER and JAMISON, JJ., concur.
(REGULAR CALENDAR); IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Marcy Vonderwell, for respondent.
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on May 16, 2024
BOGGS, J.
{¶ 1} Relator, Rickey Moody, has filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus, ordering respondent, Director, Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation, to award him an additional 165 days of jail-time credit, consistent with the sentences imposed by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶ 2} Pursuant to
{¶ 3} As the magistrate notes, respondent has filed a motion to dismiss this action, pursuant to
{¶ 4} Relator has filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. In particular, relator objects to the magistrate‘s reliance on State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr, 130 Ohio St.3d 400, 2011-Ohio-5934, and
{¶ 5} Initially, we note that relator has not objected to the magistrate‘s findings of fact, and finding no error in those findings, we adopt them as our own. We likewise adopt, without restating here, the magistrate‘s unobjected to conclusions of law setting out the legal standards regarding summary judgment and relief in mandamus.
{¶ 6} Relator is an inmate incarcerated at the Grafton Correctional Institution. Respondent is a division of ODRC and is responsible for computing release dates for Ohio inmates.
{¶ 7} On December 3, 2019, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas sentenced relator in three cases. In Summit C.P. case No. CR-2019-05-1623, the court sentenced relator to three years in prison and granted 23 days of jail-time credit. In Summit C.P. case No. CR-2018-11-3874-B, the court sentenced relator to one year in prison and granted 130 days of jail-time credit. In Summit C.P. case No. CR-2018-09-3184, the court sentenced relator to three years in prison and granted 138 days of jail-time credit. The court ordered the three sentences to run concurrently.
{¶ 8} Relator was admitted to ODRC custody to begin serving his sentences from Summit County on December 31, 2019. According to Warren, ODRC granted relator an additional 23 days of credit in each of his Summit County sentences, presumably representing the time relator remained in jail between sentencing and his admission to
{¶ 9} On March 28, 2020, the Lake County Court of Common Pleas sentenced relator to a five-year mandatory term of imprisonment, with 46 days of jail-time credit, and ordered that relator serve that prison term concurrently with his existing sentences from Summit County. In State v. Moody, Lake C.P. case No. 18CR-000866, ODRC thereafter certified relator‘s release date as January 30, 2025. After the Lake County court subsequently credited relator with 34 additional days of jail-time credit—23 days on September 1, 2020 and 11 days on August 18, 2022—ODRC recalculated and recertified relator‘s release date as December 27, 2024.
{¶ 10} Relator does not contend that the Summit County or Lake County courts miscalculated his jail-time credit; he argues that respondent failed to properly apply the correctly calculated and court ordered days of credit to his sentence. Specifically, he claims that respondent has failed to reduce his “total sentence by the 165 days [of jail-time credit] properly calculated by Summit County.” (May 17, 2023 Compl. at 3.)
{¶ 11} The magistrate correctly explains that, although the practice of awarding jail-time credit has its roots in the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, the right to jail-time credit has now been codified in state statute. See State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 17.
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14} For purposes of applying jail-time credit to a prison term, concurrent and consecutive sentences are treated differently. In Fugate, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained that
These two directives make clear that although concurrent and consecutive terms are to be treated differently when jail-time credit is applied, the overall objective is the same: to comply with the requirements of equal protection by reducing the total time that offenders spend in prison after sentencing by an amount equal to the time that they were previously held.
{¶ 15} Upon review of the relevant statutes and Administrative Code provisions, the Supreme Court held in Fugate that, “when concurrent prison terms are imposed, courts do not have the discretion to select only one term from those that are run concurrently against which to apply jail-time credit,” because “[i]f courts were permitted to apply jail-time credit to only one of the concurrent terms, the practical result would be * * * to deny credit for time that an offender was confined while being held on pending charges.” Id. at ¶ 12. Thus, “when a defendant is sentenced to concurrent prison terms for multiple charges, jail-time
{¶ 16} The Supreme Court revisited the issue of application of jail-time credit in Rankin, 2011-Ohio-5934. There, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ judgment denying Rankin‘s request for a writ of mandamus to order the director of ODRC to recalculate his prison term by crediting each of his concurrent prison terms with 734 days of jail-time credit. According to the Fourth District, Rankin had been sentenced to prison in Adams, Scioto, Pike, and Highland Counties, all arising from his involvement in a burglary spree. Rankin received 82 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Adams County in 2007, 8 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Scioto County in 2007, 18 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Pike County in 2008, and 52 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Highland County in 2009. Rankin agreed that the controlling sentence for determining his release date was his 13-year sentence from Highland County.
{¶ 17} Rankin argued that he should receive additional credit for 644 days he had already served on his other sentences, plus the 90 days of jail-time credit to which the Adams and Scioto County courts had determined he was entitled. The Fourth District disagreed and held that Rankin was not entitled to credit on his Highland County sentence for time served in relation to the other cases, prior to his sentencing in Highland County.
{¶ 18} In affirming the Fourth District‘s judgment, the Supreme Court held that the director of ODRC “had no duty to reduce Rankin‘s Highland County 13-year sentence by the number of days that Rankin was confined for other crimes before he received the 13-year sentence.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 2. The Supreme Court distinguished Fugate, because Fugate had been “held on each of the charges before his sentencing, and he was thus entitled to a reduction of each concurrent prison term.” Id. It concluded, “[t]he fact that the Highland County court ordered that Rankin‘s 13-year sentence be served concurrently with his prior sentences does not affect our determination that Rankin is not entitled to a reduction of his 13-year sentence.” Id.
{¶ 19} In his first objection, realtor challenges the magistrate‘s reliance on Rankin and cites this court‘s decision in State v. Slager, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-794, 2012-Ohio-3584, in support of his argument that Fugate remains “controlling [law,] regardless of whether concurrent sentences were imposed at different times by different Courts.” (Relator‘s Objs. to Mag.‘s Decision at 1.) Relator‘s reliance on Slager, however, is misplaced. The appellant
{¶ 20} Here, the magistrate reasoned that this case presents a situation analogous to that in Rankin, as relator has been sentenced to concurrent prison terms by courts in more than one county. The magistrate concluded that, pursuant to Rankin, respondent‘s application of jail-time credit to relator‘s stated prison term from Lake County, reducing the stated term only by the jail-time credit certified by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas in that case, was proper. The magistrate reasoned, “the fact that the Lake County court ordered relator‘s five-year sentence to be served concurrently” with the previously imposed sentences from Summit County “does not affect the determination that [relator] is not entitled to a reduction of his five-year sentence on that basis.” (Mag.‘s Decision at 19.) We agree and, like the magistrate, conclude that this determination aligns with the command in
{¶ 21} In his second objection, relator argues that the magistrate erred by relying on
{¶ 22} Under both
{¶ 23} For these reasons, we overrule relator‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision, and we adopt the magistrate‘s decision, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, as our own. In accordance with the magistrate‘s recommendation, we grant respondent‘s motion for summary judgment and deny relator‘s request for a writ of mandamus.
Objections overruled; motion for summary judgment granted; writ of mandamus denied.
LUPER SCHUSTER and JAMISON, JJ., concur.
State ex rel. Rickey Moody, Relator, v. Director, Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation, Respondent.
No. 23AP-303
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
October 24, 2023
(REGULAR CALENDAR); IN MANDAMUS ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
M A G I S T R A T E ’ S D E C I S I O N
Rendered on October 24, 2023
Rickey Moody, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Marcy Vonderwell, for respondent.
{¶ 24} Relator, Rickey Moody, filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation,2 to award him an additional 165 days of jail-time credit consistent with the sentences imposed by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.
I. Findings of Fact
{¶ 25} 1. Relator is an inmate incarcerated at the Grafton Correctional Institution in Lorain County, Ohio.
{¶ 27} 3. Relator was sentenced on December 3, 2019 in three criminal cases in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and subsequently sentenced in March 2020 in a criminal case in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.3
{¶ 28} 4. In State v. Moody, Summit C.P. No. 2019-05-1623 (“Case No. 2019-05-1623“), relator was sentenced to a three-year period of incarceration and awarded 23 days of jail-time credit. In State v. Moody, Summit C.P. No. 2018-11-3874 (“Case No. 2018-11-3874“), relator was sentenced to a one-year period of incarceration and awarded 130 days of jail-time credit. In State v. Moody, Summit C.P. No. 2018-09-3184 (“Case No. 2018-09-3184“), relator was sentenced to a three-year period of incarceration and awarded 138 days of jail-time credit. The sentences in each of the Summit County cases were ordered to run concurrently with one another.
{¶ 29} 5. In State v. Moody, Lake C.P. No. 18CR-000866 (“Case No. 18CR-000866“), relator was sentenced to a five-year mandatory term of imprisonment to be served concurrently with the three Summit County cases. The court awarded relator 46 days of jail-time credit. The Lake County trial court later credited relator with an additional 23 days of jail-time credit in one entry and an additional 11 days of jail-time credit in a subsequent entry.
{¶ 30} 6. In his complaint in this mandamus action, relator asserted he had no adequate remedy at law because the sentencing courts properly calculated his jail-time credit, but respondent failed to properly apply the correctly-calculated and court-ordered jail-time credit to his sentence. Relator requests “the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent * * * to correctly apply the additional 165 days of jail-time credit properly calculated and ordered by the Summit County Common Pleas Court and to reduce his sentence accordingly.” (Compl. at 4.)
{¶ 32} 8. On June 12, 2023, a magistrate‘s order was issued converting respondent‘s June 5, 2023 motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to
{¶ 33} 9. Relator filed a “memorandum contra motion to dismiss” on June 27, 2023. Relator did not submit any additional materials attached to this filing.
II. Discussion and Conclusions of Law
Relator seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent to grant him an additional 165 days of jail-time credit. Respondent argues it is entitled to summary judgment because relator has received the appropriate amount of jail-time credit as ordered by the trial courts, and, therefore, cannot demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief.
A. Summary Judgment and Mandamus Standard
{¶ 34} Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party demonstrates: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.
{¶ 35} In order for a court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish (1) the relator has a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent is under a clear legal duty to provide the relief, and (3) the relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29 (1983), citing State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes, 54 Ohio St.2d 41, 42 (1978). The relator bears
B. Jail-Time Credit under Ohio Law
{¶ 36} “The practice of awarding jail-time credit, although now covered by state statute, has its roots in the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.” State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 7. See State ex rel. Williams v. Chambers-Smith, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-388, 2020-Ohio-1344, ¶ 4 (“A criminal defendant has a general right to credit for [the time spent in] confinement prior to sentencing“). Pursuant to
The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the minimum and maximum sentence, where applicable, the definite sentence, the minimum and maximum of a non-life felony indefinite prison term, or the stated prison term of an offender by the total number of days specified by the sentencing court in the sentencing entry as required by division (B)(g)(i) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code; by the number of days the offender was confined as a result of the offense, between the date of the sentencing entry and the date committed to the department, and by the number of days, if any, that the offender previously served in the custody of the department of rehabilitation and correction arising out of the offense for which the offender was convicted and sentenced as determined by section 2967.191 of the Revised Code.
{¶ 38}
The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any error not previously raised at sentencing in making a determination under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section. The offender may, at any time after sentencing, file a motion in the sentencing court to correct any error made in making a determination under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section, and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that motion. If the court changes the number of days in its determination or redetermination, the court shall cause the entry granting that change to be delivered to the department of rehabilitation and correction without delay.
C. Application
{¶ 40} First, it is important to recognize that error in the calculation of jail-time credit is “remediable in the ordinary course of law by appeal or motion for jail-time credit” under
{¶ 41} Relator states in his complaint that his jail-time credit “was properly calculated by the trial courts.” (Compl. at 3.) Nevertheless, citing to Fugate, relator asserts that respondent has failed to properly apply the court-ordered jail-time credit to his sentence. Specifically, relator asserts that respondent has failed to reduce his “total sentence by the 165 days properly calculated by Summit County.” (Compl. at 3.) Here, in the sentence calculation letter attached to Warren‘s affidavit, Warren stated the following with regard to relator‘s sentence in Case No. 18CR-000866:
The above listed incarcerated person was sentenced on 12/3/2019 for three Summit County cases. Case
CR2019051623 was sentenced to 3 years and given 50 days of credit. Case CR2018113874 was sentenced to 1 year and given 157 days of credit. Case CR2018093184 was also sentenced to 3 years and given 165 days of credit. He was admitted on 12/31/2019, at that time his controlling term was case CR2019051623, and his release date was certified as 11/9/2022.
On 1/10/2020 [relator] went out to court for Lake County, ON 3/18/2020 he was sentenced on Lake County case 18CR000866. He was sentenced to a 5-year mandatory term for Possession 2925.11. He was given 46 days of credit in the entry and returned the next day 3/19/2020 so there was no conveyance time to apply. His release date was certified as 1/30/2025. On 9/1/2020 we received an entry granting him an additional 23 days of jail credit. This made his total credit 69 days, and his release date was then re-certified as 1/7/2025.
On 8/18/2022 we received another jail credit entry for Lake County 18CR000866 granting him another 11 days for a total of 80 days credit. His release date was again certified as 12/27/2024.
(Ex. A-1, Warren Aff.)
{¶ 42} In Fugate, 2008-Ohio-856, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered the calculation of jail-time credit for concurrent sentences under
{¶ 43} Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Ohio clarified Fugate in State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr, 130 Ohio St.3d 400, 2011-Ohio-5934. In that case, Rankin filed a complaint in mandamus in the Fourth District Court of Appeals seeking to compel the director of ODRC to recalculate the expiration of his stated prison term by crediting each of his concurrent prison terms with 734 days of jail-time credit.7 The court of appeals found that Rankin was involved in a burglary spree in Adams, Scioto, Pike, and Highland Counties in 2006. Rankin received 82 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Adams County in 2007, 8 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Scioto County in 2007, 18 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Pike County in 2008, and 52 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced to a 13-year term of incarceration in Highland County in 2009. Rankin agreed that the controlling sentence for determining his release date was the Highland County sentence, but asserted that he should receive 734 additional days of jail-time credit for 644 days of confinement in prison from the time he had already served on the other sentences in addition to the jail-time credit he received in those other cases. The court of appeals denied the writ of mandamus.
{¶ 44} On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, finding that ODRC “had no duty to reduce Rankin‘s Highland County 13-year sentence by the number of days that Rankin was confined for other crimes before he received the 13-year sentence.” (Emphasis sic.) Rankin at ¶ 2. The court stated that “[t]he fact that the Highland County court ordered that Rankin‘s 13-year sentence be served concurrently with his prior sentences does not affect our determination that Rankin is not entitled to a reduction of his 13-year sentence.” Id. The court distinguished Fugate, stating that it did “not require a different result, because in that case, the defendant was held on each of the charges before his sentencing, and he was thus entitled to a reduction of each concurrent prison term.” Id.
{¶ 45} The parallels between this matter and Rankin are readily apparent. Similar to the offender in Rankin, relator was sentenced to concurrent prison terms in more than one county. The sentence calculation letter submitted by respondent reflects that the
D. Conclusion
{¶ 46} Accordingly, it is the decision and recommendation of the magistrate that summary judgment should be granted in favor of respondent and relator‘s request for a writ of mandamus should be denied.
/S/ MAGISTRATE
JOSEPH E. WENGER IV
Notes
The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the minimum and maximum sentence, where applicable, the definite sentence or the stated prison term of an offender by the total number of days that the offender was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which he was convicted and sentenced, including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial, confinement for examination to determine his competence to stand trial or sanity, confinement in a community-based correctional facility and program or district community-based correctional facility and program, where applicable, and confinement while awaiting transportation to the place where he is to serve his sentence.