Youngstown Daily Legal News

1st District Court of Appeals orders proper calculation of jail-time credit

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 22, 2013

The 1st District Court of Appeals recently remanded a case for proper calculation of a defendant’s jail-time credit.

The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas calculated conflicting jail-time credit amounts in the case of Judah Hargrove.

Hargrove was indicted on Oct. 25, 2007 on one count of identity fraud and one count of misuse of a credit card.

The sheriff completed a return on the arrest warrant on Oct. 31, 2007 and Hargrove did not make bail.

Almost one year later, on Oct. 15, 2008, Hargrove pleaded guilty to identity fraud and the state dismissed the remaining charge.

The trial court sentenced Hargrove to two years of community control with intensive supervision, which was to begin after Hargrove’s release from prison on other charges.

Case summary stated that the court orally notified Hargrove that he had already served 426 days on the charge.

In Dec. 2011 Hargrove was released from prison on the other charges and in March 2011 he was charged with violating the terms of his community control in the identity-fraud case.

The Hamilton County Sheriff placed a detainer on Hargrove later that month. The facts and procedural history in the appellate court’s written opinion stated that Hargrove was in jail on other charges again at this time.

In April, the trial court found Hargrove guilty of the community control violation and sentenced him to 18 months in prison.

The court notified him that he was entitled to 99 days of jail-time credit and Hargrove did not object at the time.

Upon appeal, Hargrove assigned one error to the trial court in which he argued that the court had failed to award him an adequate amount of jail-time credit.

In a per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals wrote that “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 afford bail and those who could not.”

An offender is entitled to credit for days spent in jail “for any reason arising out of the offense for which he is sentenced, but not for time served for an unrelated reason.”

The Ohio Revised Code states that the prison term of a defendant will be reduced by the total number of days that the prisoner was confined awaiting trial, a mental examination or transportation.

“The trial court’s duties include holding a hearing on the issue if one is requested and notifying the defendant and the department of corrections of the credit,” wrote the court.

The appellate panel stated that the trial court’s failure to properly calculate jail-time credit is an error that can be raised on direct appeal.

In 2012, the General Assembly amended the Revised Code to provide that “the trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any error not previously raised at sentencing” in determining the credit.

“Because Hargrove did not object when the trial court notified him of the 99 days of credit at his April 2012 sentencing hearing,” wrote the court. “We review under a plain-error standard.”

Hargrove’s contention was that court transcripts from his Oct. 2008 sentencing hearing demonstrated that he was entitled to a credit of at least 426 days.

The court found that Hargrove did not explain how that calculation could be accurate. The record indicated that less than a year had transpired between his arrest upon his indictment and the date of the October 2008 sentencing hearing.

“Yet, the trial court did calculate the allowance at 426 days,” wrote the appellate panel. “And it repeatedly informed Hargrove of this amount at the hearing without any objection by the state.”

The state never did dispute the trial court’s calculation of 426 days of jail-time credit, nor could it explain the subsequent calculation of a 99 day credit at the April 2012 sentencing.

According to the Court of Appeals, Hargrove properly demonstrated that his sentence was “clearly and convincingly contrary to law.”

The fact that the trial court calculated conflicting jail-time credit amounts and that none of the parties involved could confirm that either amount was correct, led the appellate panel to vacate Hargrove’s sentence in part.

The case was remanded back to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas for the proper calculation of jail-time credit.

The trial court’s judgment was affirmed in all other respects.

Presiding Judge Sylvia Hendon was joined by Judges Penelope Cunningham and Patrick Dewine to form the unanimous decision.

The case is cited State v. Hargrove, 2013-Ohio-1860.

[Back]