State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles K. Watters, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15AP-742 (C.P.C. No. 13CR-6742)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
December 29, 2015
[Cite as State v. Watters, 2015-Ohio-5473.]
HORTON, J.
(ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Rendered on December 29, 2015
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee.
Charles K. Watters, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
HORTON, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Charles K. Watters, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for reduction of prison term. Defendant asserts the following sole assignment of error for our review:
The defendant-appellant contends he was prejudice [sic] and deprived his jail-time credit pursuant to law.
{¶ 2} Because defendant‘s contentions regarding his jail-time credit are barred by res judicata, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 3} On December 27, 2013, in case No. 13CR-6742, defendant was indicted on one count of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, a felony of the fourth degree, and one count of having a weapon while under disability (“WUD“), a felony of the third degree. Defendant had previous felony convictions on his record.
THE COURT: Here‘s the bottom line on it: We all talked beforehand. I am going to give you a two-year sentence with zero days’ jail credit on this case number. I‘m terminating all of your other cases unsuccessful. Okay? That‘s not a joint recommendation by the parties, but that‘s my analysis on what we‘re going to do today.
Your other choice was to take your chances with a presentence investigation, but there‘s a lot of risk factors in doing that, including another 90 months plus another 36, so a possibility of another 102 additional months that could be involved here, less your jail time credit. Okay?
(Tr., 9.)
{¶ 5} Defendant indicated that he understood what the court was doing with respect to his sentence and his jail-time credit. Defense counsel did not object to the court‘s resolution of the multiple cases and the jail-time credit. After hearing defendant‘s probation officer‘s testimony regarding the jail-time credit on each case, the court applied the jail-time credit as follows: 5 days on case No. 10CR-6672; 173 days on case No. 11CR-1254; 141 days on case No. 12CR-4470; and zero days on case No. 12CR-4471. The court then terminated defendant‘s probation as unsuccessful, thereby disposing of the probation revocation cases, and sentenced defendant to 24 months on the WUD charge. In the judgment entry imposing the sentence, the court stated that defendant had zero days of jail-time credit, but ordered that defendant was “to receive jail time credit for all additional jail time served while awaiting transportation to the institution from the date of the imposition of this sentence.” (Judgment Entry, 2.)
{¶ 7} On June 10, 2015, defendant, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court‘s decision denying his motion for reduction of prison term. However, defendant‘s counsel voluntarily dismissed the appeal. On August 4, 2015, defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal from the court‘s May 11, 2015 decision. The state filed a motion to dismiss defendant‘s pro se appeal on August 19, 2015. On August 20, 2015, this court issued a judgment entry denying the state‘s motion to dismiss and concluding that the appeal was timely filed. The matter is now properly before this court for resolution.
II. RES JUDICATA
{¶ 8} Initially, we note that, in its lengthy appellee brief, the state argues that this court erred in denying the state‘s motion to dismiss the appeal. The state‘s contentions regarding our previous motion ruling are not properly before this court in the state‘s appellee‘s brief. The state could have filed an App.R. 26 motion for reconsideration of our August 20, 2015 entry, but it did not. The state has not filed a cross-appeal of any issue in this matter. As “this court rules on assignments of error only, and will not address mere arguments,” we confine our analysis to the assigned error. Ellinger v. Ho, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1079, 2010-Ohio-553, ¶ 70; App.R. 12(A)(1)(b). The state also suggests that we should dismiss the appeal for certain, minor flaws in defendant‘s pro se appellate brief. We decline to do so. Rather, in the interests of justice, we will address the assignment of error presently before us.
{¶ 9} Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by sentencing him to a 24-month prison term, and failing to “add the concurrent court case‘s jail-time credit.” (Appellant‘s Brief, 4.) Defendant contends that he is entitled to jail-time credit pursuant to Fugate. In Fugate, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “[w]hen a defendant is sentenced to concurrent prison terms for multiple charges, jail-time credit pursuant to
{¶ 10}
The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any error not previously raised at sentencing in making a determination under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section. 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 division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section, and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that motion. If the court changes the number of days in its determination or redetermination, the court shall cause the entry granting that change to be delivered to the department of rehabilitation and correction without delay. Sections 2931.15 and 2953.21 of the Revised Code do not apply to a motion made under this section.
{¶ 11} Thus,
{¶ 12} Accordingly, as jail-time credit was raised and addressed at the sentencing,
{¶ 13} In his motion for reduction of prison term, defendant argued that
{¶ 14} Based on the foregoing, defendant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled. Having overruled defendant‘s sole assignment of error, the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
SADLER and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.
_________________