State v. WindsorState v. Windsor
Rendered on the 27th day of May, 2022.
IAN A. RICHARDSON, Atty. Reg. No. 0100124, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Prosecutor‘s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
DAVID R. MILES, Atty. Reg. No. 0013841, 1160 East Dayton-Yellow Springs Road, Suite 306, Fairborn, Ohio 45324 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
WELBAUM, J.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On March 16, 2021, Windsor entered a guilty plea to one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of
{¶ 3} Windsor appealed from his conviction. Windsor‘s first appellate counsel filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting the absence of any non-frivolous issues for appeal and raising three potential assignments of error. After reviеwing Windsor‘s potential assignments of error and conducting an independent review of the record, this court identified at least one issue with arguable merit for Windsor to advanсe on appeal. The issue identified by this court concerned the trial court‘s failure to specify the total number of days of jail-time credit that Windsor had earned as of the date of his sentencing. Having identified that issue, we rejected Windsor‘s Anders brief, appointed new appellate counsel to represent Windsor, and ordered Windsоr‘s new counsel to file a brief addressing the aforementioned jail-time credit issue and any other issues. Windsor‘s new counsel thereafter filed a brief asserting a single assignment оf error for this court to review.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 4} Windsor contends that the trial court erred by failing to properly calculate his jail-time credit. Specifically, Windsor claims that the trial сourt failed to specify the total number of days of jail-time credit that he had earned as of the date of his sentencing. As
{¶ 5}
The record of the person‘s conviction shall specify the total number of days, if any, that the person was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the person was convicted and sеntenced prior to delivery to the jailer, administrator, or keeper under this section. The record shall be used to determine any reduction of sentence under divisiоn (C) of this section.
{¶ 6}
[T]he jailer in charge of a jail shall reduce the sentence of a person delivered into the jailer‘s custody * * * by the total number of days the person was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the person was convicted and sentenced, including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial, cоnfinement for examination to determine the person‘s competence to stand trial or to determine sanity, confinement while awaiting transportation to the place where the person is to serve the sentence, and confinement in a juvenile facility.
{¶ 7} In State v. Wade, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2015-CA-45, 2015-Ohio-5171, we held that the trial court had erred by awarding jail-time credit “from November 30, 2014 until conveyance to the penitentiary system.” Id. at ¶ 14-15. We found that awarding jail-
{¶ 8} Similar to Wade, the trial court in this case awarded Windsor jail-time crеdit “from February 12, 2021 until conveyance to [the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction].” The trial court‘s duty, however, was to calculate and specify the total number of days that Windsor had been confined in jail for the instant offense as of the date of his sentencing hearing. See State v. Davis, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27495, 2018-Ohio-4137, ¶ 12 (“It is clear from the language in Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04 that the trial court‘s obligation in calculating jail-time credit is limited to calculating the number of days the defendant was confined prior to sentencing.“). “At the time of sentencing, the trial сourt has no way of knowing how long it will take a defendant to be transported to prison after the defendant has been sentenced; therefore, any days the defendаnt spends in confinement while awaiting transportation to prison cannot properly be included in the trial court‘s jail-time credit calculation.” Id. at ¶ 14. As a result, Windsor corrеctly asserts that the trial court erred by failing to specify the total number of days of jail-time credit that he earned as of the date of his sentencing hearing. Windsor also сorrectly
{¶ 9} That said, “an inaccurate determination of jail-time credit at sentencing is not grounds for setting aside the conviction or sentence and does not otherwise render the sentence void or voidable.” Davis at ¶ 16, citing
{¶ 10} In this case, the record indicates that Windsor was not given the opportunity to be heard on the issue of jail-time сredit at his sentencing hearing. This is because the trial court‘s award of jail-time credit “from February 12, 2021 until conveyance to [the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrеction]” was specified only in the sentencing entry. Therefore, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand this matter to the trial court so that the court сan address the jail-time credit issue by specifying the total number of days
of jail-time credit that Windsor had earned as of the date of his sentencing.
{¶ 11} Windsor‘s sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 12} Having sustained Windsor‘s assignment of error, the portion of the trial court‘s judgment awarding Windsor jail-time credit is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court so that the court can specify the totаl number of days of jail-time credit that Windsor had earned as of the date of his sentencing. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
DONOVAN, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Ian A. Richardson
David R. Miles
Dameon Windsor
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter