State v. Ladow , 2020 Ohio 3954 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Ladow, 2020-Ohio-3954.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 29646
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
DANIEL T. LADOW COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 14 12 3742
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: August 5, 2020
SCHAFER, Judge.
{¶1} Daniel Ladow appeals a journal entry of the Summit County Court of Common
Pleas that denied his motion for jail-time credit. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In 2015, Mr. Ladow pleaded guilty to robbery and criminal damaging, and the trial
court sentence him to four years imprisonment. The court eventually granted him judicial release
and ordered him to participate in a reentry program monitored by Oriana House, Inc. After Mr.
Ladow violated the terms of the reentry program multiple times, the trial court terminated him
from the program and re-imposed his sentence. The court awarded him a total of 1,043 days of
jail-time credit, which did not include 179 days Mr. Ladow alleges he spent in confinement at
Oriana House. Mr. Ladow filed a motion for jail-time credit, asking to be credited for his time at
Oriana House, but the trial court denied his motion, explaining that it had correctly calculated his
jail-time credit. Mr. Ladow did not appeal the trial court’s decision. Instead, he filed another
2
motion for jail-time credit, asking again for credit for his time at Oriana House. The trial court
denied Mr. Ladow’s motion, noting that it had already denied a similar motion concerning the
same dates. Mr. Ladow has appealed, assigning as error that the trial court incorrectly denied his
motion for jail-time credit.
II.
Assignment of Error
The trial court abused its discretion by denying [Mr. Ladow’s] motion to
correct jail time credit.
{¶3} Mr. Ladow argues that he is entitled to jail-time credit for all the days he has been
incarcerated for any reason arising out of his offenses. He argues this includes any time that he
spent at a community based correctional facility (“CBCF”) or halfway house facility that was
sanctioned by the court.
{¶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.” Id. This Court reviews the denial of a motion to correct
jail-time credit for an abuse of discretion. State v. George, 9th Dist. Medina No. 19CA0037-M,
2019-Ohio-3823, ¶ 8. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision is unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶5} The State argues that Mr. Ladow’s motion was barred under the doctrine of res
judicata because he did not appeal the denial of his first motion for jail-time credit. The doctrine
of res judicata, in part, bars a party from raising arguments that could have been raised in a prior
appeal. State v. D’Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141, 143 (1995).
3
{¶6} This Court has not yet addressed whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to
successive motions for jail-time credit. Other districts, however, have held that the res judicata
applies to successive motions that raise the same errors. State v. Bryant, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
19AP-241, 2020-Ohio-363, ¶ 22 (collecting cases from the Eighth and Eleventh Districts).
{¶7} Even if this Court reached the merits of Mr. Ladow’s argument, we would conclude
that he has failed to establish that the trial court exercised improper discretion when it denied his
motion for jail-time credit. The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that entry into a CBCF
constitutes confinement that should be credited towards a defendant’s sentence. State v. Napier,
93 Ohio St.3d 646, 647 (2001). This Court has clarified, however, that whether time at a CBCF
constitutes confinement depends on the level of restriction placed on a defendant during his
participation. State v. Edwards, 9th Dist. Summit No. 20840, 2002 WL 701946, *1 (Apr. 24,
2002); State v. Smith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 20726, 2002 WL 533400, *1 (Apr. 10, 2002); see State
v. Nagle, 23 Ohio St.3d 185, 186-187 (1986) (explaining that defendant’s stay at rehabilitation
center was not confinement). “[W]hen a defendant seeks jail-time credit for time he spent at a
facility other than jail, the question is whether his time at that facility was ‘sufficiently restrictive
to constitute confinement * * *.’” State v. Stobbs, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29346, 2020-Ohio-92, ¶
7, quoting State v. Rinella, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28460, 2018-Ohio-1922, ¶ 19. “If sufficiently
restrictive, time served in a non-jail facility will be awarded as jail-time credit.” Id.{¶8} It is a defendant’s burden to present evidence that demonstrates his level of
participation at a facility. Id. at ¶ 11, citing Edwards at *2. Mr. Ladow attached three Oriana
House release report summaries to his motion for jail-time credit. The first indicates that he
participated in a halfway house program and served 119 days in the program. The second indicates
that he participated in a work release program and served 24 days in that program. The third also
4
indicates that he participated in a work release program and served 36 days in that program. There
are no additional details about any of the programs, such as the amount of restrictions that were
placed on Mr. Ladow while he was engaged in the programs. Accordingly, upon review of the
record, we conclude that Mr. Ladow has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion
when it denied his motion for jail-time credit. Mr. Ladow’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶9} Mr. Ladow’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit 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 Summit, 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
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.
JULIE A. SCHAFER
FOR THE COURT
5
HENSAL, P. J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
DANIEL T. LADOW, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.