State v. SmileyState v. Smiley
{¶1} Jаmes Smiley appeals from a judgment of the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to a six-month jail term for his conviction of attempted drug possessiоn. He claims the trial court erred in not granting him jail-time credit. After a careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the court‘s judgment.
Substantive Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} The fаcts of this case are not in dispute. On August 11, 2011, Smiley was arrested for drug abuse involving heroin. He was subsequently indicted for drug possession, a fifth-degree felony, and possessing criminal tools — a spoon with heroin residue — a fifth-degree felony. On September 9, 2011, Smiley failed to appear in court for his arraignment. The court issued a cаpias for him.
{¶3} A few weeks later, Smiley was arrested for an unrelated burglary case in Medina County, in Medina C.P. No. 1-CR-0447. He was held in Medina County jail from September 26, 2011, to May 9, 2012, when he was transferred to a prison to complete his 18-month sentence in the case.1
{¶4} A week into his prison term for the Medina case, on May 16, 2012, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas issued a capias and ordered Smiley‘s return
{¶5} Smiley was held in Cuyаhoga County jail until January 2, 2013. On that day, he pleaded guilty to attempted drug possession, a first-degree misdemeanor, and the court sentenced him to 180 days in jail, to run concurrently with the prison sentence he was already serving in the Medina case. The trial court specifically ordered that there would be no credit for time served in the Cuyahoga County jail; in the sentence entry the court stated: “No jail credit. All credit applied to Medina County case.”2
{¶6} Smiley filed a timely appeal from his sentence.3 In his sole assignment of еrror, he contends the trial court erred when it failed to give him jail-time credit in the instant case for the time he served in the Cuyahoga County jail awaiting the disposition of the case.
{¶7} The practice of awarding jail-time credit has its roots in the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions. State v. Maddox, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99120, 2013-Ohio-3140, ¶ 38, citing State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2009-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440, ¶ 7. “Ohio has long awarded offenders a ‘jail-time credit’ at sentencing for the time they were confined while awaiting trial, in order to equalize the treatment of those who could аfford bail with those who could not.” State v. Hargrove, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120321, 2013-Ohio-1860, ¶ 5, citing Fugate. Jail-time credit is necessary because
[a] person with money will make bail while a person without money will not. If both persons are given identical sentences, the reality is that unless the person who did not make bail is given credit for his pretrial time, the poorer person will have served more time than the other. Unequal treatment based on personal wealth is anathema to the Constitution as a denial of equal protection.
Fugate at ¶ 25 (Stratton, J., concurring).
{¶8} This principle of equal treatment is codified in
{¶10} Smiley‘s reliance on Fugate is misplaced. In Fugate, the defendant committed burglary and theft while on community control for a prior casе. He was held in jail awaiting simultaneously for the disposition of the community control violation case and the burglary and theft case. The trial court imposed 12 mоnths for the community control violation and credited defendant the days he spent in jail, and then sentenced him to two years in the burglary and theft case, concurrent to his term for the community control violation case, but with no jail-time credit.
{¶11} The issue on appeal in Fugate was whether the jail-time credit awarded by the trial court to his sentence in only one of the two cases should be applied to both cases. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that when a defendant is sentenced to concurrent prison terms for multiple cases, jail-time credit pursuant to
{¶13} The facts of this case are readily distinguishable from Fugate. Here, Smiley had already been sentenced and was in the midst of serving an 18-month prison term for a prior case, when hе was transferred to Cuyahoga County and held in jail for the instant case. The 28 days he was held in the Cuyahoga jail was time he would have been incarcerated fоr his Medina conviction. Although this case involved a concurrent sentence, Fugate does not apply. See, e.g., State v. DeMarco, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96605, 2011-Ohio-5187, ¶ 11 (distinguishing Fugate); Maddox, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99120, 2013-Ohio-3140, ¶ 49 (distinguishing Fugate).
{¶14} Finally, we emphasize that, because Smiley was serving a prison sentence fоr a previous case when he was held in Cuyahoga County jail, he could not have posted bond and been released while awaiting the disposition of the nеw case. Therefore, the trial court‘s refusal to give jail-time credit did not offend the notion of equal protection, which, as the Fugate court explained, is thе overall objective of jail-time credit. Fugate at ¶ 11.
{¶16} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment intо execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for exeсution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR