{¶ 2} On August 3, 1995, appellant pleaded guilty to amended counts in two separate cases. In CR320159, he pleaded guilty to one count of drug trafficking, with a firearm and a violence specification, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} Appellant was sentenсed to a total term of imprisonment of seven to fifteen years, to run consecutive to six years on gun specificatiоns, and he was subsequently admitted to the Ross Correctional Institution.
{¶ 4} On April 10, 2003, appellant filed a motion for judicial release, whiсh was granted by the trial court. On May 18, 2004, he was found to be in violation of his probation. Consequently, his probation was terminated, and he was remanded to prison. On August 25, 2004, he filed a motion for jail time credit. On September 9, 2004, the trial court entered the following journal еntry in response: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED IS GRANTED. SHERIFF TO CALCULATE."
{¶ 5} Appellant continued to assert that the calculation of good time credit towards his projected date of his first parole board hearing was inaccurate. On August 5, 2005, he filed a motion with the trial court seeking declaratory judgmеnt to find that the calculations of the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections ("DRC") were incorrect. On August 18, 2005, the trial cоurt denied his motion for declaratory judgment.
{¶ 6} Appellant appeals that ruling, asserting three assignments of error.1 Becausе all three assignments relate to the computation of his jail time credit, we address them together.
{¶ 7} R.C.
{¶ 8} "The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the stated prison term of a prisoner or, if the prisoner is serving a term for which there is parole eligibility, the minimum and maximum term or the parole eligibility date of the prisoner by the total number of days that the prisoner was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was convicted * * *."
{¶ 9} According to R.C.
{¶ 10} In the instant case, the trial court granted appellant's motion for jail time credit after he had been remanded to prison pursuant to his probation violation. In doing so, the trial court ordered that credit be given for time served, but ordered that the time be calculated by the sheriff. While this action is not preferable, it does not ultimately prove fatal to the proceedings below.
{¶ 11} "Fоrmally, trial courts were required by Crim.R. 32.2 to recite, in the termination entry, the amount of time that a convicted defendant spent bеfore sentencing. However Crim.R. 32.2 was amended, effective July 1, 1998, and no longer contains this requirement. The Department of Rehаbilitation and Corrections understandably would appreciate a trial court's recitation, in its termination entry, of the amount of time that a convicted defendant has spent in jail upon a charge for which he was convicted, so that the Department may perform its duty pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 12} Therefore, pursuant to the trial cоurt's September 9, 2004 order to credit appellant for jail time served, the duty of calculation and enforcement of that jail time credit fell squarely with the DRC. The record indicates that the DRC did subsequently reexamine appellant's jail time credit, cаlculating his earned credit to be 49 days and setting his first hearing date for June 8, 2007. In a letter dated September 29, 2004, the DRC reflected this detеrmination, stating:
{¶ 13} "I am in receipt of your correspondence regarding your sentence computation. You were not eligible for earned credit while serving your gun specification, so any credit earned during that time had to be removed. Also for two months in 2001 you earned credit for minimum status that had to be removed because you were not minimum status. Your parole board date has been calculated with 49 days of earned credit. First hearing date is6/8/07." (Ex. 15, letter from Vicki Wallace, Ohio Department of Rehabilitatiоn and Correction, Bureau of Sentence Computation.)
{¶ 14} Subsequent to this computation by the DRC, appellant filed his motion for declaratory judgment at issue here. In denying that motion, the trial court held: "THE RECORDS SHOW THAT JAIL TIME CREDIT CALCULATIONS ARE CORRECT." Upon our review of the record, we concur with the trial court. Pursuant to R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee rеcover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeаl.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into еxecution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Patricia Ann Blackmon, J., concurs; Sean C. Gallagher, J.,Concurs in Judgment Only.
"I. MR. THOMAS FRAZIER WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A CORRECT ASSESSMENT OF HIS PAROLE ELIGIBILITY HEARING DATE, DUE TO THE DEPT. OF REHAB. CORRECTIONS BUREAU OF SENTENCE COMPUTATION FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF O.R.C.
"II. THE BUREAU OF SENTENCE COMPUTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OHIO DEPT. OF REHAB. CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES PURSUANT TO O.R.C. 5120-01 (07-O.R.D.-12) HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET OR ALTER THE CLEAR AND AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE CONTAINED THEREIN IN CORRELATION WITH O.R.C.
"III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WITHOUT DETERMINING WHETHER AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY EXISTED FROM THE RECORD BY FAILING TO CORRECT THE ENCLOSED ATTACHED ERRORS."