STATE OF OHIO v. KRISTIE M. GUISER
C.A. No. 29456
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Dated: December 31, 2019
2019-Ohio-5421
HENSAL, Judge.
STATE OF OHIO )
)ss:
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO
Appellee
v.
KRISTIE M. GUISER
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
C.A. No. 29456
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
CASE No. CR-2014-07-2178(B)
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 31, 2019
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} Kristie Guiser appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas
that denied her motion for jail-time credit. For the following reasons, this Court reverses.
I.
{¶2} In 2014, Ms. Guiser pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated possession of
drugs. The trial court found her guilty of the offense and sentenced her to 30 months of
community control, advising her that, if she violated the conditions of her community control, it
would sentence her to one year in prison and order it to run consecutive to a sentence she had
received in a different case.
{¶3} Three weeks after sentencing, Ms. Guiser violated the conditions of her
community control. The trial court found her guilty of the violation and ordered her to serve one
year in prison consecutive to the two-year sentence she had received in a different case. The
correctional facility (CBCF).
{¶4} After Ms. Guiser served more than 500 days in prison, the trial court granted her
judicial release and placed her on two years of community control. Ms. Guiser violated the
conditions of her community control three times. The first two times, the court continued her on
community control. The third time the trial court sentenced her to one year in prison to be
served consecutively to a two-year sentence it had imposed for her community control violation
in a different case, for a total of three years imprisonment. It credited her “an aggregate total of
67 days of jail credit * * * since the time she was released from prison on judicial release.” The
court also wrote in its entry that “Defendant’s previously calculated jail time credit prior to the
original imposition of sentence, along with the time served in the Ohio State Reformatory for
Women, is not included in this calculation.”
{¶5} Ms. Guiser did not appeal her sentence. Instead, she filed a motion for jail-time
credit, arguing that she had only received 67 days of credit and that the trial court should have
included the time she spent in jail and a CBCF before her first prison stay. The trial court denied
her motion. Ms. Guiser subsequently filed a request for a nunc pro tunc entry and a motion to
calculate and amend her jail time and prison credit, arguing that the court’s jail time credit
should have included all of the time she spent in jail, a CBCF, or prison before her judicial
release. The trial court denied her motion. Ms. Guiser has appealed, assigning as error that the
trial court failed to properly calculate and credit her prior jail and prison time.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW WHERE IT
CONFINEMENT (JAIL-TIME) CREDIT AND PRIOR INCARCERATION IN
ITS SENTENCING ENTRY.
{¶6} Ms. Guiser argues that the trial court incorrectly concluded that she was not
entitled to any additional jail-time credit. Revised Code Section 2929.19(B)(2)(g)1 provides that,
at sentencing, if a court determines that a prison term is necessary or required, it shall
include in the sentencing entry the total number of days, including the sentencing
date but excluding conveyance time, that the offender has been confined for any
reason arising out of the offense for which the offender is being sentenced and by
which the department of rehabilitation and correction must reduce the definite
prison term imposed on the offender as the offender’s stated prison term * * *.
The court’s calculation shall not include the number of days, if any, that the
offender served in the custody of the department of rehabilitation and correction
arising out of any prior offense for which the prisoner was convicted and
sentenced.
“to correct any error [in the calculation] not previously raised at sentencing[.]”
2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii)
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.” Id. We review the
denial of a motion to correct jail-time credit for an abuse of discretion. State v. George, 9th Dist.Medina No. 19CA0037-M, 2019-Ohio-3823, ¶ 8. An abuse of discretion occurs when the
court’s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 OhioSt.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶7} Ms. Guiser argues that the trial court’s sentencing entry did not award her all of
the jail-time credit to which she was entitled. She contends that, in contrast to the 67 days that
contends that she has been incarcerated in prison a total of 504 days, bringing her aggregate time
served to 747 days.
{¶8} The State notes that the trial court was not responsible for crediting Ms. Guiser’s
prison time. Section 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) specifically provides that “[t]he court’s [jail-time
credit] calculation shall not include the number of days, if any, that the offender served in the
custody of the department of rehabilitation and correction * * *.” Prior prison time is credited to
a defendant by the department of rehabilitation and correction itself under Section 2967.191(A),
which provides that the department “shall reduce the stated prison term * * * by the total number
of days, if any, that the prisoner previously served in the custody of the department * * * arising
out of the offense for which the prisoner was * * * sentenced.” See State v. Fisher, 10th Dist.Franklin No. 16AP-402, 2016-Ohio-8501, ¶ 16 (explaining that the department of rehabilitation
and corrections’ “obligation to reduce a stated prison term by the number of days an inmate
previously served in [its] custody is independent of the sentencing court’s duty to determine jail
time credit.”).
{¶9} Although the trial court was not required to include Ms. Guiser’s prior prison time
in its calculation, it was required to determine “the total number of days” that Ms. Guiser has
been confined “for any reason arising out of the offense” for which she was being sentenced.
R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i). When the trial court sentenced Ms. Guiser after her first community
control violation, it determined that she had served 145 days in jail or a CBCF. According to
Ms. Guiser, she spent another 15 days in jail after sentencing until she was actually transported
to prison. Under Section 2967.191(A), Ms. Guiser is entitled to credit for the number of days
that she spent in “confinement while awaiting transportation to the place where [she] is to serve
at the time of sentencing, Ohio Administrative Code 5120-2-04(C) provides that, when a sheriff
delivers an offender to the department of rehabilitation and corrections’ reception center, the
sheriff must present “a record of the days [the offender] was confined for the offense between the
date of sentencing and the date committed to the reception center.” See State v. Davis, 2d Dist.Montgomery No. 27495, 2018-Ohio-4137, ¶ 10-14.
{¶10} When the trial court sentenced Ms. Guiser for violating the conditions of her
community control after her judicial release, it did not include the 145 days it originally credited
her or the time that she spent awaiting transportation to prison following her first violation in its
jail-time credit. Instead, it only credited her the 67 days she had spent in custody “since the time
she was released from prison on judicial release.” It explicitly indicated that “Defendant’s
previously calculated jail time credit * * * is not included in this calculation.”
{¶11} The plain language of Section 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) directs a sentencing court to
include in its sentencing “the total number of days” that an offender has been confined “for any
reason” arising out of the offense for which she is being sentenced. We note that, although the
court sentenced Ms. Guiser after she committed a community control violation, the sentence it
imposed was actually for her original conviction of aggravated possession of drugs, just as the
sentence it imposed following her first community control violation. Upon review of the record,
we conclude that the trial court’s jail-time credit should have included all of the time that she
was confined in jail or a CBCF before and immediately after sentencing on her first community
control violation as well as the time that she has spent in jail or a CBCF related to that offense
following her judicial release.
it did not have to include the jail-time credit it previously determined, but could simply tack on
the additional time that Ms. Guiser was entitled because of her confinement on the latest
community control violation. Although that makes some practical sense, Section
2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) requires a court to calculate “the total number of days” that an offender was
confined related to the underlying offense. It is also important for a court’s latest sentencing
entry to include all of the prior time because the department of rehabilitations and correction may
only credit jail time that has been “determined by the sentencing court under [R.C.
2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i).” R.C. 2967.191(A). Furthermore, in assessing what time has been
“determined by the sentencing court[,]” Section 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(v) provides that “[t]he
department of rehabilitation and correction shall rely upon the latest journal entry of the court in
determining the total days of local confinement for purposes of division (B)(2)(g)(i) to (iii) of
this section and section 2967.191 of the Revised Code.” The department, therefore, could not
look back to the time the trial court credited in its prior sentencing entry, but was only authorized
to award Ms. Guiser 67 days of jail time credit.
{¶13} Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court should have granted
Ms. Guiser’s motion and awarded her the additional jail-time credit to which she is entitled.
Without a correction of the amount of jail-time credit, Ms. Guiser will be required to serve time
that she has already served, which is both unreasonable and unconscionable. We, therefore,
conclude that the trial court exercised improper discretion when it denied Ms. Guiser’s motion
under Section 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii). The trial court is instructed to enter a new sentencing order
that credits Ms. Guiser for all of the time she has spent in confinement in jail or a CBCF related
to her aggravated-possession-of-drugs offense. If the trial court concludes on remand that the
corrected sentencing entry nunc pro tunc. Davis, 2018-Ohio-4137, ¶ 17. Ms. Guiser’s
assignment of error is sustained.
III.
{¶14} Ms. Guiser’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded for proceedings
consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed,
and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
KRISTIE M. GUISER, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
Notes
fluctuated between