STATE OF OHIO v. RONALD G. JOHNSON
CASE NO. CA2020-06-008
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO FAYETTE COUNTY
5/10/2021
[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2021-Ohio-1629.]
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 20040196
Ronald G. Johnson, #A518770, Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, 2240 Hubbard Road, Youngstown, Ohio 44505, pro se
BYRNE, J.
{1} Appellant, Ronald G. Johnson, appeals a decision of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for additional jail-time credit. Appellee, the state of Ohio, elected not to file an appellate brief. As a result, we may accept Johnson‘s statement of facts and issues as correct pursuant to App.R. 18(C). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
{2} On July 18, 2005, Johnson was indicted in Fayette County for receiving stolen property, failing to comply, and obstructing official business. The charges of the indictment stemmed from a multi-county crime spree Johnson engaged in on July 10, 2005 in Fayette, Highland, and Adams Counties. Officers arrested Johnson on July 11, 2005, and he was booked into the Fayette County Jail the same day. The following day, July 12, 2005, Johnson was transferred to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections’ Correctional Reception Center in Orient, Ohio.
{3} On March 28, 2006, Johnson pleaded guilty to the counts of the Fayette County indictment and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of three years, to be served consecutively to the term of incarceration he was already serving at that time arising out of a different case. The trial court also applied two days of jail-time credit to Johnson‘s sentence.
{4} In July 2011, Johnson moved the trial court for a correction of his jail-time credit. In his motion, Johnson argued the trial court miscalculated his jail-time credit, and that he was entitled to a total of 261 days of jail-time credit, rather than the two days of jail-time credit he actually received, because he allegedly remained incarcerated while awaiting trial in this case during that period. The trial court denied Johnson‘s motion. In so doing, the trial court stated the following:
The [c]ourt has reviewed the records from the Fayette County Jail and finds that the defendant was incarcerated in the jail from July 11, 2005 to July 12, 2005. Defendant was correctly credited with two (2) days in his sentencing entry. The [c]ourt further finds the defendant IS NOT entitled to any other credit from this [c]ourt.
Johnson did not appeal the trial court‘s decision.
{5} On October 24, 2012—over a year after filing his first motion for jail-time
{6} One week later, on October 31, 2012, Johnson moved the trial court to review the facts surrounding his time in confinement prior to trial and to recalculate his jail-time credit. In his motion, Johnson argued he was entitled to credit for the period between July 11, 2005 and March 28, 2006, or 261 days.
{7} The state opposed both of Johnson‘s October 2012 motions. In its opposition, the state argued the trial court should deny Johnson‘s jail-time credit request because the trial court had already determined Johnson was not entitled to any additional jail-time credit, and Johnson failed to appeal that determination. The state further argued Johnson was not being held on the Fayette County charges while awaiting trial in this case, and therefore, his motion should be denied.
{8} On November 20, 2012, the trial court overruled Johnson‘s renewed request for jail-time credit filed on October 31. Johnson did not appeal the trial court‘s decision. The trial court did not render a decision on Johnson‘s October 24 declaratory judgment motion.
{9} More than seven and one-half years later, on June 4, 2020, Johnson filed yet another motion requesting that the trial court correct his jail-time credit—his fourth motion of this type. In his motion, Johnson argued he was entitled to 212 days of jail-time credit for the days he allegedly spent confined awaiting trial on the charges of the indictment in this case. According to Johnson, his 212-day calculation accounted for the time he was
{10} Five days later, on June 9, 2020, the trial court denied Johnson‘s motion. In its judgment entry, the trial court stated, in relevant part, “[a]fter reviewing the jail record, the [c]ourt finds that the defendant was correctly given two (2) days jail time credit in the sentencing entry dated April 17, 2006. The [c]ourt further finds the defendant IS NOT entitled to any other credit from this [c]ourt.”
II. The Appeal
{11} Johnson now appeals, raising the following assignment of error:
{12} TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN FAILING TO GRANT THE JAIL-TIME CREDIT OF 212-DAYS SPENT CONFINED AWAITING TRIAL, BEING CONFINED IN STATE PRISON AS AN (sic) “COUNTY JAIL PAROLEE.”2
{13} In his sole assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred in failing to award him 212 days of jail-time credit. He contends the trial court‘s failure to appropriately credit him for the time he spent in jail violates
A. Continuing Jurisdiction Pursuant to
{14} “The Equal Protection Clause requires that all time spent in any jail prior to trial and commitment by a prisoner who is unable to make bail because of indigency must be credited to his sentence.” State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 7. The Ohio legislature codified this principle in
{15} Alleged errors regarding an award of jail-time credit may be raised in a defendant‘s “direct appeal of his criminal conviction, or in a postsentence motion to correct jail-time credit pursuant to
[t]he sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any error not previously raised at sentencing in making a determination under [
R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) ]. The offender may, at any time after sentencing, file a motion in the sentencing court to correct any error made in making a determination under [R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) ] and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that motion. (emphasis added.)
{16} In order to establish the trial court‘s continuing jurisdiction under
{18} Based upon the status of the record, Johnson has not and cannot show that the question of whether his days incarcerated between July 12, 2005 and March 28, 2006 should be applied to his jail-time credit was raised and considered at his sentencing hearing. Consequently, Johnson has failed to demonstrate that his claim was “not previously raised at sentencing” such that the trial court had any authority or jurisdiction pursuant to
B. Jail-Time Credit and the Doctrine of Res Judicata
{19} In the alternative, even if Johnson had demonstrated that the purported jail-time credit error he now raises was not raised at sentencing, Johnson‘s request for 212 days of jail-time credit would be barred by res judicata.
{20} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant * * * on an appeal from that judgment.” State v. Brown, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2017-09-010, 2018-Ohio-3338, ¶ 17. “The purpose of the doctrine of res judicata is to prevent repeated attacks on a final judgment.” Mootispaw v. Doe, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA95-03-009, 1995 Ohio App LEXIS 4636, *3 (Oct. 23, 1995).
{21}
{22} However, “[s]imply because res judicata does not operate to bar an initial, post-sentence (sic) motion for jail-time credit, does not imply the doctrine is inapplicable to successive motions.” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Wilson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105535, 2017-Ohio-8068, ¶ 13, citing State v. Smith, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-107, 2017-Ohio-4124,
{23} As explained above, Johnson has filed three previous motions requesting jail-time credit for the same period of days at issue in his June 2020 motion. Two of those motions were explicitly denied by the trial court and Johnson failed to appeal. Because Johnson did not directly appeal the trial court‘s denial of his previous motions for jail-time credit, and res judicata bars successive motions for jail-time credit, his subsequent raising of the same alleged error in his June 2020 motion would be barred by res judicata even if the trial court had jurisdiction to hear that motion under
III. Conclusion
{24} For the foregoing reasons, the trial court‘s June 9, 2020 judgment entry is modified to reflect the dismissal of the June 4, 2020 motion for lack of jurisdiction, and we affirm the judgment as modified.
{25} Judgment affirmed as modified.
PIPER, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.