State v. Jeremy Ronald James, 95-LW-1462

• Decision Date: 04 October 1995
• Docket Number: 95-LW-1462,17173
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Appellee v. JEREMY RONALD JAMES, Appellant C.A.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee v. JEREMY RONALD JAMES, Appellant

No. 17173.

95-LW-1462 (9th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District Summit

October 4, 1995

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE NO. 94 7 1898

This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:

DECISION

REECE Judge.

Appellant, Jeremy Ronald James, appeals from his conviction and sentence on one count of assault. Because the trial court failed to credit James's sentence for time served in the juvenile detention facility, we reverse that aspect of his sentence.

Because James has appealed only sentencing issues, and has transmitted to us only a transcript of the sentencing hearing, we have a limited record of the underlying facts. James was charged with attempted murder with a firearm specification after allegedly shooting Brad Stinnet in the head. At the time of the alleged incident, James was seventeen years old. Pursuant to Juv.R. 30, the juvenile court relinquished jurisdiction to the court of common pleas. Following a jury trial, James was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault.

The trial court sentenced James to the statutory maximum of one hundred eighty days, and imposed the maximum fine of $1,000. At his sentencing hearing, James sought to receive credit for the time he had already served in the county jail and the juvenile detention facility. James further sought credit toward his fine at a rate of $30 per day for each day he had served in excess of his sentence. He made no claim as to his ability or willingness to pay the $1,000 fine.

The trial court ordered that James be given credit for the thirty-one days he had served in the county jail. The trial court did not specify in James's record of conviction however, that he had served one hundred seventy-nine days in juvenile detention pending disposition of the state's Juv.R. 30 motion to transfer jurisdiction.

James appeals and raises two assignments of error relating to this aspect of his sentencing.

Assignment of Error I

"The trial court committed error in failing and refusing to include in the appellant's record of conviction the number of days he was confined in the juvenile detention center contrary to R.C. § 2949.08 and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."

James contends that, pursuant to R.C. 2949.08, the trial court should have specified in his record of conviction that he had served one hundred seventy-nine days in the juvenile detention facility, so that he could receive credit against his sentence. R.C. 2949.08 provides, in part:

"(B) 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 he was convicted and sentenced prior to delivery to the jailer or keeper under this section. The record shall be used to determine any reduction of sentence under division (C) of this section.

"(C) The jailer, administrator, or keeper in charge of a jail or workhouse shall reduce the sentence of a person delivered into his custody pursuant to division (A) of this section by the total number of days the prisoner was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced[.]"

It is undisputed that the one hundred seventy-nine days James spent in the juvenile detention facility arose out of the offense for which he was convicted and sentenced. The only question is whether confinement in a juvenile detention facility constitutes "confinement" within the meaning of R.C. 2949.08.

The state argues that R.C. 2949.08 applies only to time served in a jail, not to time served in a juvenile detention facility. We disagree. Such a narrow construction of R.C. 2949.08 is contrary to its plain language. The statute does not confine its operation to particular facilities such as jails, prisons or workhouses. The focus of the statute is on "confinement" which, is followed by the broad modifier "for any reason." The statute was obviously intended to encompass a wide range of situations and facilities.

R.C. 2949.08(C) enumerates some examples of the requisite "confinement":

"confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial, confinement for examination to determine

...