STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HUNTER RYAN THOMAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 9-16-41
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY
February 21, 2017
2017-Ohio-607
Aрpeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. 2014-CR-092. Judgment Affirmed.
Robert C. Nemo for Appellant
Kevin P. Collins for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Hunter Ryan Thomas, appeals the August 1, 2016 judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas revoking his community control sanctions and imposing а prison term of twelve months. On appeal, Thomas assigns as error the trial court‘s calculation of jail-time credit applied to this case.1
{¶2} On March 5, 2014, in case number 2014-CR-092, the Marion County Grand Jury indicted Thomas on one count of Trafficking in Heroin, in violation of
{¶3} On May 9, 2014, Thomas pleaded guilty to the charge as stated in the indictment. The trial court accepted Thomas’ guilty plea and imposed a period of two years of community control sanctions. The trial court notified Thomas that it could impose a term of imprisonment if he violated the conditions of his community control sanctions. The trial court specified that the term of imprisonment would be twelve months.
{¶4} On Octobеr 9, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing prompted by Thomas’ probation officer, who filed a notice of Thomas’ violations of the terms of
{¶5} On August 11, 2015, the trial court held another hearing initiated by Thomas’ probation officer‘s claim of his violations. The trial court found that Thomas had indeed violated thе terms of his community control sanctions. The trial court ordered that Thomas’ community control be continued, but extended the term an additional 18 months. The trial court also ordered Thomas to complete a four to six-month рrogram at West Central Community Correctional Facility and to be assessed for his eligibility for Drug Court after his successful completion of the program at the community based correctional facility as additional terms of his community control sanctions. The trial court reiterated its notification to Thomas that he was subject to a twelve-month prison term upon violation of the terms of his community control sanctions.
{¶6} On February 19, 2016, the trial court conducted another hearing regarding Thomas’ violations of his community control sanctions due to his unsuccessful discharge from the community based correctional facility. The trial
{¶7} On March 28, 2016, Thomas appeared before the trial court for his regularly scheduled Drug Court session. The trial court noted Thomas’ noncompliance with the program‘s expectations by continuing to produce positive drug tests and ordered Thomas to complete four hours of community service each week until a negative drug screen was rendered.
{¶8} On July 25, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on allegations asserted by Thomas‘s probation officer that Thomas had agаin violated the terms of his community control sanctions. At the hearing, Thomas admitted to the violations. The trial court discussed Thomas’ violations of the terms of his community control sanctions in the instant case, 2014-CR-092, and in another casе, 2013-CR-618, for
{¶ 9} On July 29, 2016, Thomas appeared for disposition. The prosecution recommended a prison term be imposed in bоth case numbers 2013-CR-618 and 2014-CR-092, and that the prison terms be served consecutively. The trial court discussed the nature of consecutive sentencing and noted that 209 days of the calculated jail-time credit, which was comprised of thе 163 days that Thomas spent at the community based correctional facility and two periods of local jail incarceration for 28 and 18 days respectively, would be credited to Thomas in case number 2013-CR-618, and that twenty days of jail-time credit for two ten-day periods of local jail incarceration would be credited to this case, 2014-CR-092.
{¶10} The trial court found sufficient reason to revoke Thomas’ community control sanctions based upon his history of repeated violations and his unwillingness to complete court-ordered drug treatment programs. The trial court imposed a twelve-month prison term in case number 2014-CR-092 and a nine-month prison term in case number 2013-CR-618, and ordered the prison terms to run consecutively. As for jail-time credit, the trial court allocated 246 days of jail-time credit to case number 2013-CR-618, which was comprised of six separate instances that Thomas spent incarcerated in local jail amounting to 83 days, and the 163 days that Thomas spent in the community basеd correctional facility. The trial court allocated twenty days of jail-time credit to Thomas in case number 2014-CR-092. The trial court journalized its sentence in this case in its August 1, 2016 judgment entry.
{¶11} Thomas filed this appeal, assigning the following assignments of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO AWARD APPELLANT ANY JAIL-TIME CREDIT IN ITS JUDGMENT ENTRY OF AUGUST 1, 2016, WHICH REVOKED APPELLANT‘S COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTIONS AND SENTENCED HIM TO A TERM OF TWELVE MONTHS IN PRISON.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GIVE APPELLANT CREDIT FOR THE TIME THAT APPELLANT SERVED AT THE CBCF AND LOCALLY.
First Assignment of Error
{¶12} In his first assignment of error, Thomas argues that the trial court failed to give him any jail-time credit in its judgment entry imposing a prison term for the revocation of Thomas’ community control sanctions in case number 2014-CR-092. However, a reviеw of the record reveals that the trial court‘s August 1, 2016 Judgment Entry states the following regarding jail-time credit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant be transported to the Correctional Reception Center, Orient, Ohio for assignment to an appropriate penal institution. It is further ordered that the Defendant be given credit for 20 days of local jail time that he was confined through the date of sentencing for any reason arising out of this offense, plus any additional days the Defеndant is confined between the date of sentencing and the date committed to the Reception Center.
(Doc. No. 53 at 2). The record further reflects that the parties agreed at the revocation hearing that thеse twenty days of credit should be applied to case number 2014-CR-092. Accordingly, we overrule Thomas’ first assignment of error insofar as he argues that he was not given any jail-time credit in this case.
{¶13} In his second assignments of error, Thomas claims that the trial court erred in failing to credit him 209 days of jail-time credit in the instant case, 2014-CR-092. Thomas acknowledges that the trial court had already credited him these 209 days in case number 2013-CR-618. Nevertheless, Thomas maintains that he is also entitled to jail-time credit fоr these 209 days in the instant case. The 209 days in dispute consist of the following time periods:
28 days: Local Jail Incarceration, August 6, 2015 to September 2, 2015
163 days: Community Based Correctional Facility, September 3, 2015 to February 12, 2016
18 days: Local Jail Incarceration, July 12, 2016 to July 29, 2016
{¶14} Thomas claims that the triаl court should have given him jail-time credit for the 209 days in the instant case based upon the mere fact that the periods of confinements comprising these days had been mentioned in the judgment entries pertaining to both case number 2013-CR-618 and case number 2014-CR-092. Notably, when confronted with Thomas’ argument at the revocation hearing, the trial court disagreed and concluded that Thomas’ proposed calculation of jail-time credit would amount to him receiving double credit for each day he served during these time periods.
{¶16} The court observed that the foregoing principle is codified in
{¶17} When an offender is sentenced to concurrent prison terms,
{¶18} Here, the record clearly reflects that the trial court ordered Thоmas to consecutively serve the prison terms imposed in 2013-CR-618 and in 2014-CR-092. The record further establishes, and it is undisputed by the parties, that Thomas was given full credit for the 209 days of jail-time credit in case number 2013-CR-618, thereby being applied oncе and reducing the entire length of the prison sentence consistent with the principles set forth in
{¶19} For all these reasons, the assignments of error are overruled and thе judgment is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr