657 N.E.2d 602 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1995
This appeal, having been heretofore placed on the accelerated calendar, is being considered pursuant to App.R. 11.1(E) and Loc.R. 12. Pursuant to Loc.R. 12, we hereby elect to issue a full opinion in lieu of a judgment entry.
Defendant-appellant, Eric Faulkner, appeals from the conviction and sentence entered against him by the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, following defendant's plea of guilty to the charge of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C.
In his appeal, defendant asserts the following sole assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in failing to credit appellant for the period of time he was confined pursuant to R.C.
The record reveals that on August 11, 1994, defendant was indicted on two counts of theft in violation of R.C.
On November 22, 1994, the trial court dismissed the theft and forgery charges set forth in the initial indictment and defendant pled guilty to the amended charge of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C.
Defendant contends that he should be given credit toward his prison sentence for the time he "served" under electronic home monitoring. R.C.
"The adult parole authority shall reduce the minimum and maximum sentence or the definite sentence of a prisoner by the total number of days that the *604 prisoner 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 * * *."
Thus, in order for defendant to receive credit toward his one year sentence, the period of his electronic home monitoring must be considered confinement within the meaning of R.C.
The record indicates that the trial court released defendant and placed him under electronic house arrest as a condition of his recognizance bond. Therefore, although defendant was placed under house arrest, he was nevertheless free on bond. In our view, defendant's court imposed electronic house arrest clearly constituted "constraint incidental to release on bail" pursuant to R.C.
Moreover, in State v. Tyler (1993),
"[W]e find no rationale or provision for granting credit towards a sentence of incarceration in a penal institution for time spent free on bail, although on house arrest, while awaiting sentence."
Similarly, we conclude that the defendant in the case subjudice was not subject to confinement or detention while awaiting trial and is therefore not entitled to any credit toward his sentence of incarceration for the one hundred two days he spent subject to electronic house arrest. See State v.Brownlow (1991),
In summary, as defendant's sole assignment of error is overruled, the conviction and sentence entered by the Marion County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
For the reasons stated it is the order of this court that the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas be, and hereby is, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
THOMAS F. BRYANT, P.J., and EVANS, J., concur. *605