State v. Keckler ( 2013 )

[Cite as State v. Keckler, 2013-Ohio-5493.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 5-13-16
v.
JERRY L. KECKLER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2013 CR 47
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 16, 2013
APPEARANCES:
William T. Cramer for Appellant
Mark C. Miller and Alex K. Treece for Appellee
Case No. 5-13-16
ROGERS, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jerry Keckler, appeals the judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County denying his motion for jail-time
credit. On appeal, Keckler argues that the trial court should have granted his
request for seven days jail-time credit. Keckler also argues that he was denied
effective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
{¶2} On February 19, 20131, the Hancock County Grand Jury indicted
Keckler on one count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). On
April 3, 2013, Keckler withdrew his former plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to
one count of domestic violence. The trial court ordered a pre-sentence
investigation and the matter proceeded to sentencing on June 5, 2013. At the
sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Keckler to community control with
five years supervision. The trial court further advised Keckler that if his
community control was revoked he could be sentenced to a term of 16 months in
prison. As one of his conditions of his community control, Keckler was required
to serve a term of 30 days at the Hancock County Justice Center.
1
We note that the file stamp on the indictment is illegible. In the Appellee’s brief, it states Keckler was
indicted on February 19, 2013. Appellee’s Br., p. 1. However, at the change of plea hearing, the State
testified, “Mr. Keckler was indicted by [the] Hancock County grand jury on February – I think it’s 18th.
The file stamp is a little difficult to read. However, it occurred this year near February.” (Docket No. 46,
p. 3).
-2-
Case No. 5-13-16
{¶3} Keckler was committed to the Hancock County Justice Center on June
11, 2013 and remained confined there for 30 days. (Docket No. 23, p. 1). On
June 14, 2013, Keckler filed a pro se motion, requesting that the trial court grant
him seven days jail-time credit.2 That same day, the trial court denied Keckler’s
request, stating that “[Keckler]’s time has been properly and carefully calculated *
* *.” (Docket No. 25, p. 1).
{¶4} Keckler filed this timely appeal, presenting the following assignments
of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. I
THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONS, AND R.C. 2949.08, BY FAILING TO
CREDIT APPELLANT FOR TIME SPENT IN JAIL
WAITING TO POST BOND.
Assignment of Error No. II
APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE
STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS WHEN
COUNSEL FAILED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF JAIL
CREDITS AT SENTENCING.
{¶5} Due to the nature of the assignments of error, we elect to address them
together.
2
On appeal, Keckler argues that he was in jail from February 11, 2013, until he posted bond on February
18, 2013. Appellant’s Br., p. 3; (Docket No. 5, p. 1).
-3-
Case No. 5-13-16
Assignments of Error No. I & II
{¶6} In his first and second assignments of error, Keckler argues that the
trial court violated R.C. 2949.08 when it denied his motion for jail-time credit.
Keckler also argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his
trial counsel did not raise the issue of jail-time credit at his sentencing hearing.
{¶7} R.C. 2949.08(B) clearly requires a trial court to include in its
sentencing entry the number of days that a person was confined for any reason
arising out of his/her offense prior to delivery to the jailer. It further requires that
the jailer reduce the term of incarceration by the number of days specified.
(A) When a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony
is sentenced to a community residential sanction in a community-
based correctional facility pursuant to section 2929.16 of the
Revised Code or when a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty
to a felony or a misdemeanor is sentenced to a term of imprisonment
in a jail, the judge or magistrate shall order the person into the
custody of the sheriff or constable, and the sheriff or constable shall
deliver the person with the record of the person's conviction to the
jailer, administrator, or keeper, in whose custody the person shall
remain until the term of imprisonment expires or the person is
otherwise legally discharged.
(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 the person was convicted and
sentenced prior to delivery to the jailer, administrator, or keeper
under this section. The record shall be used to determine any
reduction of sentence under division (C) of this section.
(C) (1) If the person is sentenced to a jail for a felony or a
misdemeanor, the jailer in charge of a jail shall reduce the sentence
of a person delivered into the jailer's custody pursuant to division
(A) of this section by the total number of days the person was
-4-
Case No. 5-13-16
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, confinement 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.
R.C. 2929.08(A)-(C)(1).
{¶8} The statute does not exempt a period of confinement under a
community control residential sanction from this requirement of reduction, or
from the requirement that the sentencing entry include the number of days
previously served. Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to specify the number
of days Keckler had served prior to sentencing. However, at this time, there is no
remedy available to Keckler as the issue of how much jail time he must serve
under the community control residential sanction is now moot.
{¶9} While it is well-established that an appeal that challenges a felony
conviction is not moot even if the entire sentence has been served before the
appeal is heard, State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, paragraph one of the syllabus
(1994), this same reasoning does not apply if the appellant is challenging only the
length of his sentence, and not the underlying conviction, State v. Beamon, 11th
Dist. Lake No. 2000-L-160, 2001-Ohio-8712, *2. This is because once the
appellant has been released, his sentence has expired. State ex rel. Gordon v.
Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, ¶ 6. “If an individual has already
-5-
Case No. 5-13-16
served his sentence, there is no collateral disability or loss of civil rights that can
be remedied by a modification of the length of that sentence in the absence of a
reversal of the underlying conviction.” Beamon at 1.
{¶10} Here, Keckler admits that he has served the full 30 days in the
Hancock County Justice Center. Therefore, because he has already served the
entire length of his sentence, the issue of whether the trial court improperly denied
his request for jail-time credit is moot. See State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula, 132
Ohio St.3d 35, 2012-Ohio-1653, ¶ 5 (“Compton’s claims concerning jail-time
credit were rendered moot when he was released from prison.”); State v. Feagin,
6th Dist. Huron No. H-12-014, 2013-Ohio-1837, ¶ 4 (“Once a defendant has
served his sentence and has been released from prison * * * any error related to the
calculation of his jail-time credit is moot.”).
{¶11} While we find that Keckler’s argument as to his jail-time credit is
moot, Keckler will be on supervision for the next five years. If Keckler violates
his supervision, this decision will not preclude Keckler from again raising the
issue of jail-time credit to be applied to any subsequent jail sentence.
{¶12} Since the issue of whether the trial court properly denied Keckler’s
jail-time credit is moot, we likewise find that Keckler’s contention that his trial
counsel was ineffective is moot.
-6-
Case No. 5-13-16
{¶13} Accordingly, we overrule Keckler’s first and second assignments of
error.
{¶14} Having found no error prejudicial to Keckler in the particulars
assigned and argued, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI and SHAW, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-7-