State v. JekoState v. Jeko
Larry V. DiLabbio, for appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
MAYLE, P.J.
Introduction
{¶ 1} The defendant-appellee, Charles Danny Jeko, was conviсted of felonious assault and sentenced by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas to two years in prison, with 353 days of jail time credit for those days he had been out of jail on bond and
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Jeko was indicted on April 25, 2016, on a single count of felonious assault in violation of
{¶ 3} Jeko‘s arraignment took place on September 14, 2016. According to the trial court‘s order, it “continued [Jeko‘s] bond at $50,000 with the following added conditions: 1) Defendant to be placed in Electronic Monitoring with no violations; 2) Defendant to submit to twice weekly drug testing including urinalysis, blood testing, or drug patch; 3) Defendant to submit to random Breathalyzer testing; 4) Defendant to have no direct or indirect contact with the victim.”
{¶ 4} Jeko was tried before a jury and convicted on January 24, 2017. He then filed a motion under Crim.R. 33(A)(6), requesting a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The trial сourt granted Jeko‘s motion, and the state appealed.
{¶ 5} Jeko remained on electronic monitoring as a condition of bond after his conviction and during the state‘s appeal. On June 29, 2017, while the appeal was still рending, Jeko moved to vacate the electronic monitoring portion of his bond. Jeko stressed that he had been on electronic monitoring for over 300 days without any violations, appeared on time for all court dates, and dutifully followed all of the terms and conditions of bond. The trial court initially denied the motion, but on August 28, 2017, it vacated the electronic monitoring condition of bond.
{¶ 6} On February 23, 2018, we reversed the trial court‘s grant of a new trial and remanded the case for sentencing. State v. Jeko, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1143, 2018-Ohio-665 (Jeko I). The sentencing hearing was held on March 21, 2018, at the conclusion of which the trial court sentenced Jeko to two years in prison, with 353 days of credit for time spent while under electronic monitoring. Both parties appealed. Jeko‘s appeal was dismissed, sua sponte, for failure to file a brief. The state asserts the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred in reducing defendant‘s prison term by his time served on eleсtronic monitoring before sentence was imposed.
{¶ 7} An appellate court may increase, decrease, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed trial court sentence if it clearly and convincingly is demonstrаted that either the record of evidence did not support applicable statutory findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 8} “Confinement” is not defined within the criminal code, but it has bеen “deemed synonymous with the term ‘detention‘” as defined in
{¶ 9} Whether the imрosition of electronic monitoring constitutes “detention,” and therefore “confinement” for purposes of jail time credit under
{¶ 10} We have recognized that electronic monitoring that is imposed as a pre-trial condition of bond is generally not “detention” and, therefore, not “confinement” fоr purposes of
{¶ 11} Accordingly, we find that Jeko was not entitled to jail time credit for those days that he was subject to electronic monitoring before his January 24, 2017 trial because he was not subject to “detention” or “confinement” during that time. See also State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27937, 2018-Ohio-4142, ¶ 21 (“[T]rial courts may not treat a defendant‘s electronically-monitored home confinement, imposed as a
{¶ 12} Moreover, in this case, we find that this same rationale applies to Jeko‘s electronic monitoring between January 24, 2017, the date of his conviction, and August 28, 2017, the date that the trial court vacated the electronic monitoring condition of bond. Jeko‘s electronic monitoring was a pretrial condition of his bond that extended after his conviction, while the state pursued its first appeal. It was not a condition of any sentence, and had he violated the terms of the electronic monitoring, he would not have been subject to prosecution, though presumably, his bond would have been rescinded. See
{¶ 13} The state‘s sole assignment of error is found well-taken.
Conclusion
{¶ 14} We find that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that Jeko‘s sentence is contrary to law. He was not entitled tо jail time credit under
Judgment reversed.
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
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, P.J. CONCUR.
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.