State v. CarterState v. Carter
For Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor; Atty. Gabriel Wildman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503
For Defendant-Appellant: Rodney Carter, Pro se, #A464-539, Belmont Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 540, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950-0540
{¶1} Pro se Appellant Rodney Carter contends that he is entitled to 430 days of jail-time credit that was not deducted from his sentence for felonious assault and improperly discharging a firearm. The state agrees with Appellant’s argument, and we hereby modify the sentence to grant Appellant 430 days of credit to the sentence in Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2000 CR 1245.
{¶2} On December 1, 2000, Appellant was arrested for improperly discharging a weapon into an inhabited structure,
{¶3} On March 1, 2001, Appellant entered into a
{¶4} On February 4, 2002, Appellant was granted judicial release pursuant to
{¶6} On October 29, 2002, the state filed a motion to revoke probation in Case No. 2000 CR 1245. Counsel was appointed, but withdrew on October 1, 2003, and new counsel was appointed. The probation revocation hearing was finally held on May 3, 2004, and the court filed its judgment entry on May 6, 2004. The court revoked Appellant’s probation, reinstated the remainder of his original prison term, and ordered that the prison term be served consecutive to the sentence imposed in Case No. 2002 CR 1070. The court granted Appellant 558 days of credit for time already served. This number represents the number of days that Appellant was incarcerated from October 23, 2002 (the date of his arrest in Case No. 2002 CR 1070) to the day he was sentenced in Case No. 2002 CR 1070.
{¶7} On November 18, 2008, Appellant filed a motion for additional jail-time credit. Appellant argued that the trial court miscalculated the amount of jail-time credit awarded after his probation was revoked, and asked the court to add 430 days of credit. The court overruled the motion without comment on December 1, 2008. The judgment entry was served on Appellant on December 19, 2008. This appeal followed on January 15, 2009.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶9} Substantive claims regarding jail-time credit should be raised on direct appeal, and if a court overrules a post-sentence motion raising such claims, such ruling is generally not regarded as a final appealable order. State v. Chafin, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1108, 2007-Ohio-1840; State v. Newport, 2d Dist. No. 2006-CA-49, 2007-Ohio-1678; State v. Caldwell, 11th Dist. No. 2004-L-173, 2005-Ohio-6149. On the other hand,
{¶10} Appellant argues that the trial court should have credited him with an additional 430 days of jail-time credit based on the time he was incarcerated prior to being placed on judicial release in Case No. 2000 CR 1245. Appellant argues that
{¶11} The state has agreed with the facts and argument set forth by Appellant. The state’s brief on appeal notes that: “the Court only credited Appellant with 558 days successfully served. The period of 558 days reflects the time from when Appellant was arrested on the new charges in case number 2002 CR 1070, specifically 10/23/02 through the 5/3/2004 probation violation hearing. This number fails to account for the 430 days that Appellant successfully served before he was released on judicial release in case number 2000 CR 1245. As such, Appellant is entitled to an additional credit of 430 days on case number 2000 CR. 1245.” (Appellee’s Brf., p. 3.)
{¶12} The state also makes recommendations regarding jail-time credit calculations in Case No. 2002 CR 1070, but that case is not under review in this appeal. Because the state has confessed judgment in the instant appeal and accepts Appellant’s arguments, we rely on the authority found in
Vukovich, P.J., concurs.
DeGenaro, J., concurs.