State v. Godsey , 2022 Ohio 3871 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Godsey, 2022-Ohio-3871.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-22-25
v.
DRAYVONTE M. GODSEY, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR 2018 0468
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 31, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Thomas J. Lucente, Jr. for Appellant
Jana E. Emerick for Appellee
Case No. 1-22-25
ZIMMERMAN, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Drayvonte M. Godsey (“Godsey”), appeals the
judgment entry of sentencing of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} This case stems from a traffic stop in Lima, Allen County, Ohio,
wherein Godsey (a passenger in the vehicle) was found in possession of drugs and
a gun.1
{¶3} On November 15, 2018, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Godsey
on: Count One for possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(6)(a),
a fifth-degree felony; Count Two for aggravated possession of drugs in violation of
R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony; and Count Three for possession
of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(4)(a), a fifth-degree felony. On
November 28, 2018, Godsey appeared for arraignment and entered pleas of not
guilty.
{¶4} On March 13, 2020, Godsey withdrew his pleas of not guilty and
entered guilty pleas, under a written-plea agreement. Specifically, in exchange for
his guilty pleas to the indictment in case number CR 2018 0468 (hereafter “0468”),
the State agreed to dismiss all counts related to case number CR 2018 0372
1
Godsey was indicted on gun-related charges in case number CR 2018 0372 arising out of the same facts
and circumstances herein. However, that record is not before us on appeal.
-2-
Case No. 1-22-25
(hereafter “0372”). The trial court accepted Godsey’s guilty pleas and dismissed
case number 0372.
{¶5} On June 10, 2020, the trial court ordered Godsey to a three-year term
of community control under each count in case number 0468.
{¶6} On February 24, 2022, the State filed a motion for revocation of
Godsey’s community control because Godsey failed to report for his intensive-
probation-supervision appointments. On March 7, 2022, the trial court determined
that Godsey violated the terms and conditions of his community control.
{¶7} Then, on April 4, 2022, the trial court terminated Godsey from
community control and sentenced him to 9-month prison terms on Counts One,
Two, and Three. Next, the trial court ordered the prison term under Count One to
be served consecutively to Count Two and that Counts One and Two be run
concurrently to Count Three for an aggregate sentence of 18 months. Godsey
received 166 days jail-time credit in the instant case.
{¶8} Godsey filed a timely notice of appeal and raises one assignment of
error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The Trial Court Committed Plain Error When It Failed To Grant
The Proper Number Of Days Of Jail-Time Credit.
{¶9} In his assignment of error, Godsey argues that the trial court erred by
failing to give him the proper jail-time credit. Specifically, Godsey asserts that he
-3-
Case No. 1-22-25
is entitled to receive credit for additional jail time calculated under the case that was
dismissed arising from the same facts and circumstances as his conviction case.
Standard of Review
{¶10} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may reverse a sentence
“only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not
support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,
¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id.
at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the
syllabus.
Analysis
{¶11} Initially, we note that there were no terms in the plea agreement
addressing jail-time credit. Consequently, we review the statutory scheme to
determine what jail-time credit, Godsey is entitled to receive. Importantly, R.C.
2967.191 governs a criminal defendant’s entitlement to jail-time credit, and states
in its pertinent parts:
(A) The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the
prison term of a prisoner, as described in division (B) of this section,
by the total number of days that the prisoner was confined for any
reason arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was convicted
and sentenced, including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting
trial, confinement for examination to determine the prisoner’s
-4-
Case No. 1-22-25
competence to stand trial or sanity, confinement while awaiting
transportation to the place where the prisoner is to serve the prisoner’s
prison term, as determined by the sentencing court under division
(B)(2)(g)(i) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code, and confinement
in a juvenile facility. The department of rehabilitation and correction
also shall reduce the stated prison term of a prisoner or, if the prisoner
is serving a term for which there is parole eligibility, the minimum
and maximum term or the parole eligibility date of the prisoner by the
total number of days, if any, that the prisoner previously served in the
custody of the department of rehabilitation and correction arising out
of the offense for which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced.
(B) The reductions described in division (A) of this section shall be
made to the following prison terms, as applicable:
(1) The definite prison term of a prisoner serving a definite prison
term as a stated prison term;
(2) The minimum and maximum term of a prisoner serving a non-
life felony indefinite prison term as a stated prison term;
(3) The minimum and maximum term or the parole eligibility date
of a prisoner serving a term for which there is parole eligibility.
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2967.191(A)-(B). Put more plainly–under R.C. 2967.191,
a criminal defendant is entitled to jail-time credit only when it is related to the
offense for which he is being sentenced. State v. Dailey, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-10-
01, 2010-Ohio-4816, ¶ 25, citing State v. Daughenbaugh, 3d Dist. Wyandot No.
16-09-05, 2009-Ohio-3823, ¶ 18. Therefore it follows that “[a criminal] defendant
is not entitled to jail[-] time credit under R.C. 2967.191 for any period of
incarceration that arises from facts separate and apart from those on which the
-5-
Case No. 1-22-25
current sentence is based.” State v. Lynn, 3d Dist. Van Wert No. 15-06-16, 2007-
Ohio-3344, ¶ 8, citing State v. Logan, 71 Ohio App.3d 292, 300 (10th Dist.1991).
{¶12} Even though the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has the
duty to reduce the prison term of a prisoner as noted above, “the trial court has the
duty to properly calculate the number of days to be credited.” State v. Pitts, 3d Dist.
Allen No. 1-06-106, 2007-Ohio-5197, ¶ 15, quoting State v. Eaton, 3d Dist. Union
No. 14-04-53, 2005-Ohio-3238, ¶ 9. See also, Dailey at ¶ 24. The trial court’s duty
arises from R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i), and provides in its pertinent parts:
(2) Subject to division (B)(3) of this section, if the sentencing court
determines at the sentencing hearing that a prison term is necessary or
required, the court shall do all of the following:
***
(g)(i) Determine, notify the offender of, and include in the sentencing
entry the total number of days, including the sentencing date but
excluding conveyance time, that the offender has been confined for
any reason arising out of the offense for which the offender is being
sentenced and by which the department of rehabilitation and
correction must reduce the definite prison term imposed on the
offender as the offender’s stated prison term or, if the offense is an
offense for which a non-life felony indefinite prison term is imposed
under division (A)(1)(a) or (2)(a) of section 2929.14 of the Revised
Code, the minimum and maximum prison terms imposed on the
offender as part of that non-life felony indefinite prison term, under
section 2967.191 of the Revised Code. The court’s calculation shall
not include the number of days, if any, that the offender served in the
custody of the department of rehabilitation and correction arising out
of any prior offense for which the prisoner was convicted and
sentenced.
(Emphasis added.)
-6-
Case No. 1-22-25
{¶13} Here, it is undisputed that all offenses indicted under case number
0372 arose out of the same facts and circumstances as the instant case. Moreover,
it is also undisputed that all of the criminal charges indicted in case number 0372
were dismissed pursuant to plea negotiations. Consequently, and notwithstanding
that those offenses arose out of the same facts and circumstances, Godsey was never
convicted and sentenced on any offense in case number 0372. Thus, Godsey was
not entitled to any determination or notification by the trial court of the jail-time
credit under case number 0372 (at his sentencing hearing in case number 0468) nor
should the trial judge have included any jail-time credit from case number 0372 time
in the judgment entry related to case number 0468. Moreover, the record before us
is limited to case number 0468, which does not support the jail days from case
number 0372 of which Godsey claims he is entitled to credit.
{¶14} Thus, we conclude that Godsey has not established that the trial court
erred in its determination of the amount of jail-time credit that he was entitled to
under case number 0468. Accordingly, Godsey’s sole assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶15} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER and SHAW, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-7-