State v. Haddox
Court of Appeals No. E-17-006
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY
Decided: March 9, 2018
[Cite as State v. Haddox, 2018-Ohio-880.]
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
Appellee Trial Court No. 2011-CR-309
v.
Gregory R. Haddox DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: March 9, 2018
* * * * *
Kеvin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Mollie B. Hojnicki-Mathieson, for appellant.
* * * * *
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Gregory Haddox, appeals the February 22, 2017 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas which, following a remаnd from this court, sentenced appellant to consecutive sentences totaling 58 months reduced by
{¶ 2} A detailed factual history of this case is set forth in State v. Haddox, 2016-Ohio-3368, 66 N.E.3d 262 (6th Dist.) Relevant to this appeal, on October 1, 2012, appellant was sentenced to community control on several counts, including forgery and grand theft, with the caveat that if the terms of community control were violated, a 58-month imprisonment term would be imposed. At a hearing on January 23, 2015, appellant was found to have violated his community control and on January 28, 2015, was sentenced to concurrent 11 months of imprisonment on six counts; concurrent 17 months of imprisonment on five counts, and 30 months of imprisonmеnt of one count. The three groups of sentences were ordered to be served consecutive to one another for a total of 58 months of imprisonment. Appellant was given credit for 315 days of incarceration as of January 23, 2015. On appeal, this court affirmed appellant’s convictions but remanded the matter for resentencing due to the reduction in the value of the loss and corresponding felony degree in certain theft offenses. Haddox, supra, at ¶ 24-27.
{¶ 3} In the interim, on February 17, 2015, appellant filed a pro se motion for jail-time credit arguing that he was entitled to credit from March 6, 2014, through January 27, 2015, for an additional 312 days. The motion was denied on April 9, 2015.
{¶ 4} On November 22, 2016, appellant, this time represented by counsel, filed a motion for re-computation of time and/or immediate release from incarceration. The motion argued that jail-time credit was required to be applied to each sentencing
{¶ 5} At the January 24, 2017 resentencing hearing, appellant was sentenced to the same amount of imprisonment time, 58 months, and again given credit for 315 days of jail time. Thus, the court, de facto, denied appellant’s motion for additional jail-time credit. The judgment entry was journalized on January 25, 2017.
{¶ 6} Following resentencing, appellant filed numerous pro se motions for jail-time credit and judicial release; the motiоns were all summarily denied. Following the trial court’s February 22, 2017 nunc pro tunc judgment entry correcting a typographical error in the January 25 judgment, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in the instant matter. Ultimately, in May 2017, appellate counsel was appointed.1
{¶ 7} Appellant now raises one assignment of error for our review:
First Assignment of Error: The trial court erred when it failed to appropriately calculate appellant’s credit for jail time served in violation of the equal protection clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.
{¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that he should have been given approximately 200 additional days of jail credit for time served in Erie, Cuyahoga,
{¶ 9}
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 еligibility 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 and sentenced, including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial * * *.
{¶ 10} Further,
(F) If an offender is serving two or more sentences, stated prison terms or combination thereof concurrently, the department shall independently reduce еach sentence or stated prison term for the number of days confined for that offense. Release of the offender shall be based upon the longest definite, minimum and/or maximum sentence or stated prison term after reduction for jail time credit.
(G) If an offender is serving two or more sentences, stated prison terms or combination thereof consecutively, the bureau of sentenсe computation shall aggregate the sentences, stated prison terms or combination thereof pursuant to rule 5120-2-03, 5120-2-03.1, or 5120-2-03
{¶ 11} Appellant acknowledges that he was held in Summit and Cuyahoga Counties on unrelated charges but contends that pursuant to State v. Doyle, Franklin App. Nos. 12AP-567, 12AP-568, 12AP-793, 12AP-794, 2013-Ohio-3262, pretrial detention time, еven while being held on other charges, is creditable. In Doyle, the appellant was incarcerated in Ross County on a misdemeanor and was subject to detainers from Franklin, Washington, and Clinton Counties on unrеlated charges. Id. at ¶ 21-22. In the Franklin County case on appeal, the appellant argued that he was entitled to 270 additional days of jail-time credit based upon his time served in Washington County and before his Franklin County sentencing. Id. at ¶ 23.
{¶ 12} The court first acknowledged that “pretrial detention time on one charge, even when the defendant is simultaneously detained awaiting trial on other, unrelated chargеs, is creditable in most circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 25, citing State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440, ¶ 19-21. The court explained that “[i]f we assume that all appellant’s sentences across all jurisdictions are imposed concurrently, then his pretriаl time in Washington County, even if already credited to his Washington
{¶ 13} In the present matter, at the January 24, 2017 resentencing hearing, appellant’s counsel raised the issue of jail-time credit. The court stated that it did not believe that the holding in Fugate was applicable to the present action. However, counsel proceeded to analogize:
[I]f I approached your bench and stole your telephone, that’d be a felony, and it could be written up two, three, four, five different ways I could be indicted for it, okay. When we come to sentencing be one time. I could be tried under different counts, okay. Come to sentencing, if you do the crime you only get sentenced one time.
{¶ 14} The court then noted that this reasoning was an allied offense argument which was addressed by this court on appeal, not a jail-time credit issue. Counsel went on to indicate that appellant had served “943 days on the whole thing” and requested credit in that amount. The state countered: “The Defendant filed a motion for jail credit, he’s asking for – there’s 323 days, he served them in Cleveland in Cuyahoga County Jail,
{¶ 15} Upon review, we conclude that appеllant has failed to demonstrate any nexus between the jail-time confinement in other counties and his conviction in Erie County. See Doyle, supra.
{¶ 16} Appellant further argues that within his sentence jail-credit should havе been applied to each concurrent sentence “bundle.” This interpretation is contrary to the holding of Fugate which entitles jail-time credit as to each concurrent prison term, not cоnsecutive terms. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440, at syllabus, ¶ 10-11. By reducing each “bundle” by the amount of time served, appellant’s sentence would be reduced by three-times the number of days he served in jail prior to sentencing; this windfаll is not supported by Ohio statutory or case law. Based on the foregoing, we find that appellant’s assignment of error is not well-taken and it is denied.
{¶ 17} On consideration whereof, we find that appellant was not prejudiced or prevented from having a fair proceeding and the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is ordered to pay the сosts of this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
E-17-006
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
James D. Jensen, J.
_______________________________
Christine E. Mayle, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE