STATE OF OHIO v. BRANDON A. CHASTEEN
CASE NO. CA2013-11-204
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
9/2/2014
[Cite as State v. Chasteen, 2014-Ohio-3780.]
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2013-06-0899
Christopher P. Frederick, 304 North Second Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant
PIPER, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Brandon Chasteen, appeals his sentence in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for multiple counts of burglary, grаnd theft, theft, and vandalism.
{2} In 2011, Chasteen was arrested for theft-related offenses. The indictment charged a single count of grand theft, and two counts of theft from an elderly person in case
{3} In 2013, and while he was on community control for his 2011 crimes, Chasteen committеd burglary when he broke into two separate homes and stole the homeowners’ jewelry collections. Chasteen was arrested on May 31, 2013, and charged with two counts of burglary, one count оf grand theft, two counts of vandalism, and one count of theft in case number CR2013-06-0899. Bond was set at $250,000, but Chasteen did not post bond and was incarcerated from the time of his arrest. On June 4, 2013, the Butler County probation department filed a notice of violation, and the trial court held a hearing two days later and found that Chasteen had violated the terms of his community control in case number CR2011-10-1689. The trial court ordered Chasteen held in custody for his community control violation.
{4} Although Chasteen originally pled not guilty to the 2013 charges, he reached a plea agreement with the state and pled guilty tо amended charges. The trial court sentenced Chasteen to serve an aggregate sentence of seven years for his crimes specific to case number CR2013-06-0899. 133 days passed betwеen Chasteen‘s arrest for his 2013 crimes and sentencing, all of which Chasteen spent in jail.
{5} At the time of sentencing for his 2013 crimes, the trial court found that Chasteen violated the terms of his community control in case number CR2011-10-1689. The trial court revoked community control through an administrative termination, and gave Chasteen 461 days jail-time credit toward his 2011 crimes in case number CR2011-10-1689, but gave no jail credit toward Chastеen‘s 2013 crimes in case number CR2013-06-0899. Chasteen now appeals the trial court‘s decision to not give him 133 days of jail-time credit
{6} THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED A SENTENCE CONTRARY TO LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO GIVE MR. CHASTEEN JAIL-TIME CREDIT.
{7} Chasteen argues in his sole assignment of error that the trial court erred when it did not give him 133 days jail-time credit toward his 2013 crimes in case number CR2013-06-0899.
{8} Relying on the principles inherent in the Equal Protection Clause, courts have held that defendants who are unable to afford bail must be credited for the time they are confined while awaiting trial. State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 7. “The Equal Protection Clause requires that all time spent in any jail prior to trial and commitment by a prisoner who is unable to make bail because of indigency must be credited to his sentence.” Id. (Emphasis sic).
{9} The Ohio legislature codified this principle within
{10} In Fugate, the court was asked to determine the proper way to apply jail-time credit when a defendant is sentenced to concurrent sentences. The court held, “when concurrent prison terms are imposed, cоurts do not have the discretion to select only one term from those that are run concurrently against which to apply jail-time credit.” 2008-Ohio-
{11} Despite Chasteen‘s argument, the trial court properly credited the 133 days toward Chasteen‘s 2011 crimes under case number CR2011-10-1689. “Although the principle of crediting time served seems fairly simple on its face, in practice, it can be complicated when, inter alia, the defendant is charged with multiple crimes committеd at different times, or when the defendant is incarcerated due to a probation violation.” State v. Haley, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-10-212, 2013-Ohio-4531, ¶ 21, quoting State v. Chafin, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-1108, 2007-Ohio-1840, ¶ 9. An offender is not entitled to jail time credit for any period of incarceration that arоse from facts which are separate and apart from those on which his current sentence is based. Haley at ¶ 21, citing State v. DeMarco, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96605, 2011-Ohio-5187, ¶ 10. As such, a trial court does not give jail-time credit for time served on unrelated offenses, “even if that time served runs concurrently during the pre-detention phase of another matter.” Haley at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Maddox, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99120, 2013-Ohio-3140, ¶ 31.
{12} For example, this court found that an appellant was not entitled to any additional jail-time credit where he was confined on unrelated charges and “was not being held solely on the robbery offense for which he was convicted and sentenced.” State v. Bradford, 149 Ohio App.3d 586, 2002-Ohio-5508, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.).
{13} The record indicates that Chasteen was arrested and incarcerated for committing burglary, theft, and vandalism. Almost immediately, the Butler County Probation
{14} Despite Chasteen‘s reliance on Fugate, the facts and circumstances of the case at bar are distinguishable. Although Fugate specifically held that jail-time credit must be given when sentences are run concurrently, the trial court did not run Chasteen‘s seven-year aggregate sentence in case number CR2013-06-0899 concurrent to any sentence for Chasteen‘s 2011 crimes in case number CR2011-10-1689. Instead, the trial court administratively dismissed CR2011-10-1689 as unsuccessful community control, and ordered no imposition of the four-year sentence that had been stayed in that case. Essentially, the trial court sentenced Chasteen to 461 days, and then credited 461 days toward that sentence. Chasteen, howevеr, was never ordered to serve any more time for his 2011 crimes under case number CR2011-10-1689, and thus, Fugate is not applicable because there were no concurrent sentences imposed for Chastеen‘s 2011 and 2013 crimes.
{15} Multiple other courts have recognized that Fugate is not applicable when the trial court essentially sentences the defendant to ‘time served’ for a community control violation but does not run the community control violаtion concurrent with the sentence for the new crimes. See State v. Speakman, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 08AP-456 to 458, 2009-Ohio-1184, ¶ 13 (finding Fugate distinguishable where “the court sentenced appellant to an amount of time equal to the amount of jail timе credit he had, which resulted in appellant having already served his sentence for the community control violation by the time of the sentencing hearing“); State v. Maddox, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99120, 2013-Ohio-3140, ¶ 49 (finding Fugate inapplicable where the trial court did not order appellant to concurrent
{16} After reviewing the record, we find that this is not a case where Chasteen was sentenced to concurrent prison time for his violation of community control and his new 2013 crimes. Rather, Chasteen completed his prison sentence under the community control violation before he was sentenced for his 2013 crimes under cаse number CR2013-06-0899.1 Accordingly, the 461-day sentence and the seven-year aggregate sentence could not be served simultaneously, and Fugate is inapplicable for that reason. As such, the trial court did nоt err in calculating Chasteen‘s jail-time credit, and Chasteen‘s assignment of error is overruled.
{17} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.