State v. Jaycox , 2023 Ohio 2009 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Jaycox, 2023-Ohio-2009.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 22CA0032-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
BRETT M. JAYCOX COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 21CR0907
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 20, 2023
SUTTON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Brett Jaycox appeals from the judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I.
{¶2} A Medina County grand jury indicted Mr. Jaycox on one count of unlawful sexual
conduct with a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A)(B)(3), a felony of the third degree, and one
count of having weapons while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3)(B), a felony
of the third degree. Mr. Jaycox pleaded not guilty to both counts.
{¶3} After the State amended the indictment to dismiss the weapons charge, Mr. Jaycox
entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disseminating matter
harmful to juveniles in violation of R.C. 2907.031(A)(1), a felony of the fifth degree. The State
recommended to the trial court a six-month jail sentence, with credit for time served. The trial
court subsequently did not sentence Mr. Jaycox to a definite jail term. Instead, the trial court
2
ordered Mr. Jaycox to undergo an assessment at the Lorain/Medina CBCF. The trial court also
sentenced Mr. Jaycox to five years of community control, with mental health and substance abuse
assessments and monitoring as part of his community control. The record shows that Mr. Jaycox
did not move the trial court to credit him for any jail-time served prior to sentencing.
{¶4} It is from that sentencing entry Mr. Jaycox now appeals, assigning two errors for
our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT GRANTING APPELLANT, [MR.]
JAYCOX, ANY JAIL-TIME CREDIT AND IN NOT MAKING ANY
FINDING OF JAIL TIME CREDIT WHEN IMPOSING SENTENCE IN
THIS CASE.
{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Jaycox argues the trial court erred in not
granting him any jail-time credit and in not making a finding of jail-time credit when imposing a
sentence in this case. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.
{¶6} “The practice of awarding jail-time credit, although now covered by state statute,
has its roots in the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.” State
v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 7. As the Supreme Court has noted: “our own
precedent and that of the federal courts establishes that the failure to provide jail-time credit may
raise equal-protection concerns in some circumstances.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Moore, 154
Ohio St.3d 94, 2018-Ohio-3237, ¶ 26.
{¶7} Here, Mr. Jaycox argues the trial court erred in not crediting him 178 days of jail-
time credit for the time he spent in custody after being arrested. However, the trial court did not
sentence Mr. Jaycox to any period of incarceration. Therefore, no Equal Protection violation has
occurred.
3
{¶8} While the trial court informed Mr. Jaycox that it would sanction Mr. Jaycox with a
12-month prison sentence in the event that Mr. Jaycox violated the terms of his prison control, Mr.
Jaycox retains the right to file a motion in the trial court to correct the sentencing error at the time
of such violation, or at any time of his choosing. See R.C .2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii); State v. Ladow,
9th Dist. Summit No. 29646, 2020-Ohio-3954, ¶ 4 (“Under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii), a
sentencing court retains jurisdiction to correct any error in a jail-time credit calculation not
previously raised at sentencing. An offender may, at any time after sentencing, file a motion in
the sentencing court to correct any error made in making a determination under division
(B)(2)(g)(i) of this section, and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that motion.”). (Internal
quotations and citations omitted.)
{¶9} Therefore, because Mr. Jaycox has not shown the trial court denied any request for
jail-time credit, we find Mr. Jaycox’s first assignment of error is overruled on that basis.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF [MR. JAYCOX]
BY SENTENCING HIM TO LORAIN/MEDINA CBCF AND AN
ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS COMMUNITY CONTROL AS SAID
SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE AND CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION BY THE COURT.
{¶10} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Jaycox argues the trial court imposed a
sentence that did not properly consider all of the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11. For the
reasons that follow, we disagree.
{¶11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “an appellate court may vacate or modify
a felony sentence on appeal 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; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
4
“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind
of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established.” Cross
v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477 (1954).
{¶12} “A court reviewing a criminal sentence is required by R.C. 2953.08(F) to review
the entire trial-court record, including any oral or written statements and presentence investigation
reports.” State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 20. See also State v. Morabith,
9th Dist. Lorain No. 21CA011778, 2022-Ohio-3177, ¶12; State v. McClellan, 9th Dist. Summit
No. 30007, 2022-Ohio-4791, ¶13. Further, “[i]t is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the
record on appeal contains all matters necessary to allow this Court to resolve the issues on appeal.”
State v. Farnsworth, 9th Dist. Medina No. 15CA0038-M, 2016-Ohio-7919, ¶ 16. See also App.R.
9. This includes the presentence investigation reports (“PSI”). See Bryant, supra; State v.
McLeod, 9th Dist. Summit No. 20757, 2002 WL 388909, *2 (Mar. 13, 2002). This Court has
consistently held that, where the appellant has failed to provide a complete record to facilitate
appellate review, we are compelled to affirm the trial court's judgment. Farnsworth at ¶ 16.
{¶13} Here, the trial court’s sentencing entry indicates that the trial court “ordered a
presentence investigation prior to sentencing.” However, a review of the transcript of the change
in plea hearing does not indicate a PSI was ordered. Additionally, the PSI was not referenced at
sentencing. We have to assume a presentence investigation report was considered by the trial court
because “[a] trial court speaks through its journal entries” and the trial court specifically indicated
it had reviewed a PSI. State v. Green, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29777, 2021-Ohio-2222, citing State
v. Jones, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010801, 2017-Ohio-1181, ¶7 (“It is axiomatic that a court
speaks through its journal entries.”)
5
{¶14} Because the record before us does not contain the PSI necessary for appellate
review, we cannot properly review Mr. Jaycox’s sentence. See Morabith at ¶ 12; Bryant, supra;State v. Vasquez, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29422, 2019-Ohio-5406, ¶ 8; State v. Davis, 9th Dist.
Summit No. 29824, 2021-Ohio-1796, ¶ 10. Without the context the PSI might provide, we cannot
conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record the sentence is contrary to law.
See Morabith at ¶ 12; State v. Shelton, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 18CA011368, 2019-Ohio-1694, ¶ 8,
citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); State v. Collins, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 19CA011462, 2020-Ohio-317, ¶
17. Mr. Jaycox’s second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶15} Mr. Jaycox’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
6
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETTY SUTTON
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
LAWRENCE SPOLJARIC, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and VINCENT V. VIGLUICCI, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.