Bratenahl v. Eldridge , 2021 Ohio 1083 ( 2021 )

[Cite as Bratenahl v. Eldridge, 2021-Ohio-1083.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 109520
v. :
CHRISTIN ELDRIDGE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 1, 2021
Criminal Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court
Case No. 2019 CRB 021317
Appearances:
Wargo Law, L.L.C., and Leslie E. Wargo, for appellant.
LISA B. FORBES, J.:
Appellant Christin Eldridge (“Eldridge”) appeals the trial court’s
failure to calculate jail-time credit when imposing her sentence for disorderly
conduct, a fourth-degree misdemeanor.
After review of the pertinent facts and law, we affirm Eldridge’s
sentence but remand the case to the trial court to calculate and apply any jail-time
credit due.
I. Facts and Procedural History
On December 17, 2019, Eldridge was pulled over by the Village of
Bratenahl Police Department when an officer witnessed the back door of her car
opening and closing while it was in motion on the freeway. Upon pulling over the
vehicle, the officer learned that the man in the back seat of Eldridge’s car was a
protected person under a protection order against Eldridge. Eldridge was then
placed under arrest for violation of the protection order.
On January 27, 2020, Eldridge entered a guilty plea to an amended
complaint amending the charge from violation of a protection order, a first-degree
misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2919.27, to disorderly conduct, a fourth-degree
misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2917.11(E).
Eldridge was sentenced to 30 days in jail with 29 days suspended.
Eldridge was due to serve one day in jail on February 1, 2020. Eldridge filed a
motion to stay execution of sentence with the trial court, which has not yet been
ruled on. The record reflects that Eldridge has not yet served her sentence.
The trial court did not mention or calculate any award of jail-time
credit at the sentencing hearing. Further, the trial court did not mention or award
jail-time credit in its journal entry.
II. Law and Analysis
Eldridge raises one assignment of error for our review arguing that
the trial court erred when it did not calculate or credit her for jail time served as part
of her sentence. Further, in not filing a brief, the city of Bratenahl did not contest
this argument.
A review of the record reveals that Eldridge did not file a motion with
the trial court requesting the calculation of jail-time credit, nor did she object to the
trial court failing to award any credit. Therefore, we review the trial court’s failure
to award jail-time credit for plain error. State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 105903, 2018-Ohio-1297, ¶ 10. This court has previously held that a trial court’s
failure to calculate jail-time credit and include it in the body of the sentencing order
constitutes plain error. Id. at ¶ 15.
Whether a defendant is convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor
offense, under Ohio law, both are afforded jail-time credit for time served.
[The concept of jail-time credit] is codified in R.C. 2967.191 for
offenders sentenced to prison, and in R.C. 2949.08 for offenders
sentenced to jail. Under both statutes, an offender is entitled to have
the sentence reduced by the days he or she was confined prior to
conviction. Both statutes require a sentence to be reduced by the total
number of days an offender was confined “for any reason arising out of
the offense” for which the offender was convicted and sentenced.
R.C. 2967.191 and 2949.08(C)(1).
(Citations omitted.) State v. Smiley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99486,
2013-Ohio-4495, ¶ 7-8. Our sister court explained that because the statutes
addressing felony jail-time credit and misdemeanor jail-time credit are nearly
identical, much of the analysis will likewise be identical. State v. Blankenship, 192
Ohio App. 3d 639, 2011-Ohio-1601, 949 N.E.2d 1087, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.).
“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, 2009-Ohio-856, 883
N.E.2d 440, ¶ 7. Its purpose is to “equalize the treatment of those who could afford
bail with those who could not.” Smiley at ¶ 7, citing State v. Hargrove, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C120321, 2013-Ohio-1860, ¶ 5. “[T]he Equal Protection Clause does
not tolerate disparate treatment of defendants based solely on their economic
status.” Fugate at ¶ 7.
Thus, it is apparent that trial courts have the duty to calculate the
amount of jail-time credit to which a defendant is entitled. R.C. 2949.08(B);
R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i); State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio
St.3d 476, 2003-Ohio-2061, 786 N.E.2d 1286, ¶ 7. Further, the trial court must state
that amount in its journal entry. Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(B).
The record reflects that no such calculation was made in this case
and jail-time credit was not awarded in the journal entry sentencing Eldridge. The
trial court’s failure to calculate jail-time credit and include it in the body of the
sentencing order is plain error. See Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105903,
2018-Ohio-1297, at ¶ 15.
Eldridge’s assignment of error is sustained.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand the matter for
it to make a factual determination of the amount of jail-time credit, if any, Eldridge
is due and apply it to her sentence.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
Cleveland Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR