State v. McKinnon , 2021 Ohio 35 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. McKinnon, 2021-Ohio-35.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2020-03-039
CA2020-02-027
:
- vs - OPINION
: 1/11/2021
SYLVESTER MCKINNON III, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case Nos. CR2019-07-1152, CR2019-01-0119, and CR2019-04-0525
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Stephen M. Wagner, Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant
PIPER, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Sylvester McKinnon, appeals his sentence in the Butler County
Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to multiple charges including failure to appear,
aggravated assault, and operating a vehicle while under the influence ("OVI").
Butler CA2020-03-039
CA2020-02-027
{¶2} The current appeal involves three separate cases in which McKinnon was the
criminal defendant. In the first case, he was indicted on single counts of tampering with
evidence, failure to comply with an order of a police officer, obstructing official business,
failure to disclose personal information, and OVI. McKinnon pled guilty to attempted
tampering with evidence and OVI, and the remaining charges were dismissed. In the
second case, McKinnon was indicted on one count of failure to appear, to which he pled
guilty. In the third case, McKinnon was indicted on four counts of aggravated burglary, one
count of aggravated robbery, one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle, and two counts of
felonious assault. McKinnon pled guilty to an amended charge of aggravated assault, and
the remaining charges were dismissed.
{¶3} The trial court sentenced McKinnon on all three cases simultaneously. In the
first case, McKinnon was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of one year. The trial court
awarded McKinnon 218 days of jail-time credit. In the second case, McKinnon was
sentenced to one year, to be served concurrently with the first sentence. As such,
McKinnon received 218 days of jail credit in the second case. In the third case, McKinnon
was sentenced to 15 months in prison. The trial court ordered this sentence to run
consecutive to the sentences in the first two cases, and did not award any jail-time credit.
McKinnon now appeals the trial court's sentence, raising the following assignment of error:
{¶4} THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED A SENTENCE CONTRARY TO LAW WHEN
IT FAILED TO GIVE MR. MCKINNON JAIL-TIME CREDIT.
{¶5} McKinnon argues in his assignment of error that the trial court erred by not
awarding him jail-time credit on his sentence for the third case.
{¶6} The Equal Protection Clause and Ohio's sentencing statutes require that all
time spent in jail prior to trial and prior to commitment must be credited to a prisoner's
-2-
Butler CA2020-03-039
CA2020-02-027
sentence. State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 7. Although the principle
of crediting time served seems fairly straightforward, in practice, it can be complicated when
the defendant is charged with multiple crimes committed at different times. State v. Haley,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-10-212, 2013-Ohio-4531, ¶ 21. The Ohio Supreme Court has
thus addressed the difference between an instance where the defendant is ordered to serve
consecutive sentences versus when he or she is ordered to serve a concurrent sentence.
Fugate.
{¶7} "When concurrent prison terms are imposed, courts do not have the discretion
to select only one term from those that are run concurrently against which to apply jail-time
credit. R.C. 2967.191 requires that jail-time credit be applied to all prison terms imposed
for charges on which the offender has been held." Id. at ¶ 12.
{¶8} Conversely, the defendant is not entitled to jail-time credit on multiple
sentences when such defendant is sentenced to consecutive terms in which the terms of
imprisonment are served one after another. Id. at ¶ 10. Instead, jail-time credit "applied to
one prison term gives full credit that is due, because the credit reduces the entire length of
the prison sentence." Id. at ¶ 22. "A defendant sentenced to consecutive sentences on
multiple charges does not have the right to multiply his single period of pretrial confinement
by the number of convictions entered against him." State v. Salmons, 3d Dist. Union No.
14-19-02, 2019-Ohio-3541, ¶ 30.
{¶9} Due to the consecutive nature of his sentences, McKinnon was entitled to one
jail-time credit to reduce the total stated prison term. The time he served in jail was properly
credited to his 12-month concurrent sentences in the first and second cases. When the
consecutive sentence was imposed in the third case, the 218-day credit reduced the entire
length of Mckinnon's prison sentence. Thus, McKinnon was not denied any jail-time credit
-3-
Butler CA2020-03-039
CA2020-02-027
he was owed. Having found no error in the trial court's sentencing decision, McKinnon's
single assignment of error is overruled.
{¶10} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
-4-