STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ATROPIN PALMER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 11-JE-32
STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
December 13, 2012
[Cite as State v. Palmer, 2012-Ohio-5939.]
Hon. Gene Donofrio, Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich, Hon. Mary DeGenaro
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio, Case No. 04CR194. JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
For Plaintiff-Appellee No brief filed
For Defendant-Appellant Atropin Palmer #474-594 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, Ohio 45699
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Atropin Palmer appeals the Jefferson County Common Pleas Court decision denying his pro se motion for a corrected sentence. Palmer was seeking to have the trial court give him triple credit for the 83 days he spent in jail prior to trial under the triple-count provision of
{¶2} In 2004, Palmer was convicted of aggravated burglary and escape following a jury trial and sentenced to six years for aggravated burglary and four years for escape, to be served consecutively. Palmer appealed his conviction and sentence. This court affirmed his conviction, but reversed his sentence for the trial court’s failure to make the then-required statutory findings to sentence Palmer to consecutive sentences and remanded the matter for resentencing. State v. Palmer, 7th Dist. No. 04-JE-41, 2006-Ohio-749.
{¶3} After filing a direct appeal, Palmer filed a petition for post-conviction relief with the trial court claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court denied his petition and this court affirmed that decision. State v. Palmer, 7th Dist. No. 05JE47, 2006-Ohio-4606.
{¶4} Shortly after this court’s decision in his direct appeal reversing his sentences but before resentencing, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470. Cognizant of the Foster decision, the trial court again sentenced Palmer to six years for aggravated burglary and four years for escape, to be served consecutively. This time, this court affirmed the sentences. State v. Palmer, 7th Dist. No. 06-JE-20, 2007-Ohio-1572.
{¶5} In 2008, Palmer filed another petition for postconviction relief. The trial court denied Palmer‘s petition as untimely, not subject to a late-filing exception, successive and otherwise already addressed in the trial court‘s judgment resolving his first post-conviction petition. This court affirmed. State v. Palmer, 7th Dist. No. 08 JE 18, 2009-Ohio-1018.
{¶6} On November 1, 2011, Palmer filed a pro se motion to correct his sentence arguing that he did not receive proper jail time credit. Back on November
{¶7} Palmer’s sole assignment of error states:
As a result of the Trial Court denying Appellants [sic] his statutory time for bringing him to preliminary hearing and trial, receive three days credit toward each that he is held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending chargs [sic].
{¶8} When entering a judgment of conviction, the sentencing court is required to calculate, and then specify, the total number of days the defendant has been confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which they have been convicted.
{¶9}
{¶10} Palmer argues that
{¶11} Accordingly, Palmer’s sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶12} The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
Vukovich, J., concurs.
DeGenaro, J., concurs.