State v. Bryant

• Decision Date: 04 February 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19AP-241,19AP-241
• Citation: 2020 Ohio 363,151 N.E.3d 1096
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrell L. BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

151 N.E.3d 1096

2020 Ohio 363

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Terrell L. BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19AP-241

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Rendered February 4, 2020

DECISION

BRUNNER, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Terrell L. Bryant, appeals a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entered on April 5, 2019, denying his motion for additional jail-time credit. Following State v. Thompson , R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(h)(iii) retroactively grants a court discretion to grant a motion for jail-time credit if the alleged error in jail-time credit was not raised at sentencing. State v. Thompson , 147 Ohio St.3d 29, 2016-Ohio-2769, 59 N.E.3d 1264, ¶ 10-12. Further, Bryant was awarded 210 days of jail-time credit, yet placed evidence in the record showing that he was confined for 539 days of which, at most, 208 days were attributable to other reasons for confinement. In the absence of any evidentiary submission by the State to rebut Bryant's evidence, the trial court plainly erred in concluding that it had "no evidence" that Bryant had not been awarded appropriate jail-time credit. Both of Bryant's assignments of error are sustained and this case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the merits of Bryant's request for additional jail-time credit.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} On May 13, 2010, a Franklin County Grand Jury issued an 89-count indictment against Bryant as a result of an armed robbery spree he committed apparently to fund his drug habit. (May 13, 2010 Indictment; Nov. 2, 2011 Sentencing Tr. at 9-10, Ex. 2 to Mar. 6, 2019 Mot. for Credit.) After initially pleading "not guilty," Bryant agreed to plead "guilty" to 9 counts of robbery (without gun specifications) and 2 counts of forgery, with an agreed recommendation of a 10-year sentence. (Oct. 5, 2011 Plea Form; May 26, 2010 Plea Form.) In exchange for his guilty pleas, the remaining 78 counts and all specifications were dismissed. (Oct. 5, 2011 Plea Form.)

{¶ 3} During sentencing, his counsel indicated that, based on his calculations, Bryant was due a total of 210 days of credit for time spent confined that was attributable to this case. (Nov. 2, 2011 Sentencing Tr. at 4.) Counsel did not explain the calculation other than to note, "[t]here is another matter in Ross County that was addressed in that case." Id. Counsel also noted, however, that the matter in Ross County was "part of the same crime spree" and did not discuss the relationship of the credit awarded to the Franklin County case. Id. at 5. Plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, accepted the 210-day number, and the trial court adopted it. Id. at 12.

{¶ 4} Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Bryant to the recommended sentence of 10 years and ran the sentence concurrent with the 6-year sentence imposed in the Ross County case. (Nov. 8, 2011 Corr. Jgmt. Entry at 2.) The trial court noted the parties' agreement that Bryant was entitled to 210 days of jail-time credit and certified that number to the Ohio Department of rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). Id.

{¶ 5} On March 15, 2013, Bryant moved for an additional 465 days of jail-time credit to fully account for what he claimed was 675 days he spent confined in the Franklin County jail. (Mar. 15, 2013 Mot. for Credit.) Bryant attached what purported to be arrest records from the Franklin County Sheriff's Office to substantiate the request. (Arrest Records, attached to Mar. 15, 2013 Mot. for Credit.) The trial court summarily found the motion "meritless" and denied it on August 12, 2013. (Aug. 12, 2013 Entry.) Bryant did not appeal.

{¶ 6} Five years later, on August 17, 2018, Bryant again requested additional jail-time credit, this time placing his total confinement at 542 days and requesting that the 210-day credit be adjusted accordingly. (Aug. 17, 2018 Mot. for Credit.) Bryant also argued that the court should take advantage of a newly enacted amendment to R.C. 2929.19 in order to extend jurisdiction to substantively consider his request. Id. at 3-5. Bryant attached an affidavit sworn by him relating the history of his pretrial confinement as well as a number of court records to help support the motion. (Exs. 1-5, attached to Aug. 17, 2018 Mot. for Credit.) The trial court denied this motion because Bryant did not establish that the issue of jail-time credit was "not previously raised at sentencing" and did not, in any case, establish an error in the credit calculation. (Oct. 1, 2018 Entry.) Bryant appealed but voluntarily dismissed his appeal. (Oct. 19, 2018 Notice of Appeal; Feb. 28, 2019 Dismissal Entry.)

{¶ 7} On March 6, 2019, Bryant filed a new motion for jail-time credit. (Mar. 6, 2019 Mot. for Credit.) He again argued that his total confinement was 542 days and again asserted that the court should take advantage of the amendment to R.C. 2929.19 in order to extend jurisdiction to substantively consider his request. Id. at 1, 5-6. In support of the motion, Bryant attached his own affidavit, a copy of his sentencing transcript, the arrest warrant return, the criminal docket in this case, an arrest record, the judgment entry in this case, the docket from his Ross County case, and a dismissal entry related to a Pike County case that was never indicted. (Exs. 1-8, attached to Mar. 6, 2019 Mot. for Credit.) These records, in conjunction with the appellate record in this case, suggest that Bryant was held on the Franklin County case underlying this appeal for approximately one and one-half years. (May 13, 2010 Detainer; May 20, 2010 Return of Service Executed, filed May 24, 2010; Nov. 3, 2011 Jgmt. Entry.) For a period of time near the start of that confinement, Bryant was held in Scioto County on a charge that was ultimately dismissed. (Bryant Aff. at ¶ 1, Ex. 1, attached to Mar. 6, 2019 Mot. for Credit.) In addition, during the confinement on this Franklin County case, Bryant was also indicted for and convicted of robbery crimes in Ross County. (Ross County Docket, Ex. 7, attached to Mar. 6, 2019 Mot. for Credit; Nov. 8, 2011 Corr. Jgmt. Entry at 2.)

{¶ 8} The State's opposition to Bryant's motion for credit consisted entirely of arguments about why Bryant's request should be foreclosed by his counsel's agreement that 210 days was the correct number and by principles of res judicata. (Mar. 15, 2019 Memo. Contra at 5-15.) The State engaged in no analysis of why Bryant's counsel calculated his jail-time credit at 210 days when Bryant had been held for one and one-half years. Id. in passim.

{¶ 9} The trial court denied the motion for credit. (Apr. 5, 2019 Entry.) It reasoned that 210 days had been agreed to by the parties, that Bryant had not shown that the issue of jail-time credit was not raised during sentencing, that he had previously raised the issue on other occasions and not fully appealed, and that there was "no evidence" that Bryant had not been awarded appropriate jail-time credit. Id. at 1-2. Other than its assertion that there was "no evidence" that Bryant had not been awarded appropriate jail-time credit, the trial court did not attempt to reconcile the fact that Bryant received 210 days of credit but held for one and one-half years before being transferred to the custody of ODRC.

{¶ 10} Bryant now appeals.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶ 11} Bryant alleges two assignments of error:

[1.] THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY DENYING BRYANT'S MOTION FOR JAIL-TIME CREDIT PURSUANT TO OHIO REVISED CODE § 2929.19(B)(2)(h)(iii).

[2.] THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY LANGUAGE OF OHIO REVISED CODE § 2929.19(B)(2)(h)(i).

(Emphasis sic.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. First Assignment of Error – Res Judicata and the Invocation of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(h)(iii)

{¶ 12} The Ohio Constitution requires that " ‘all time spent in any jail prior to trial and commitment by [a prisoner who is] unable to make bail because of indigency must be credited to his sentence.’ " (Emphasis sic.) State v. Fugate , 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440, ¶ 7, quoting Workman v. Cardwell , 338 F.Supp. 893, 901 (N.D.Ohio 1972), citing White v. Gilligan , 351 F.Supp. 1012 (S.D.Ohio 1972) ; see also R.C. 2967.191 (codifying a statutory right to jail-time credit).

{¶ 13} In tension with the constitutional and statutory right to jail-time credit, there are two distinct obstacles to a defendant who seeks to correct his jail-time credit after direct appeal: First, the trial court relinquishes jurisdiction following final judgment except to correct void judgments and clerical errors. State v. Raber , 134 Ohio St.3d 350, 2012-Ohio-5636, 982 N.E.2d 684, ¶ 20. Second, res judicata provides the State with an equitable defense to preclude arguments that jail-time credit awarded was incorrect if the arguments were raised or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal. State v. Breeze , 10th Dist. No. 15AP-1027, 2016-Ohio-1457, 2016 WL 1378208, ¶ 7-9. Though analyses of these concepts are often taken together in cases involving jail-time credit, a court's jurisdiction and res judicata remain separate legal concepts. "Jurisdiction" refers to a court's power to hear a case (subject-matter jurisdiction) and to assert authority over the parties (personal jurisdiction). In re L.H. , 10th Dist. No. 06AP-23, 2006-Ohio-4116, 2006 WL 2300682, ¶ 7. "Res judicata," by contrast, is a combination of issue preclusion and claim preclusion that one party may assert to estop the other from relitigating matters already decided. Breeze at ¶ 7, quoting Brooks v. Kelly , 144 Ohio St.3d 322, 2015-Ohio-2805, 43 N.E.3d 385, ¶ 7.

{¶ 14} The Supreme Court of Ohio has frequently recognized in relation to jurisdiction that " ‘trial courts lack authority to reconsider their own valid final judgments in criminal cases.’ " Raber at ¶ 20, quoting State ex rel. White v. Junkin , 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 338, 686 N.E.2d 267 (1997), citing State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed , 63 Ohio St.3d 597, 589 N.E.2d...