State v. Mills ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Mills, 2022-Ohio-2821.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
AUGLAIZE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 2-22-09
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PAUL J. MILLS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 2-22-10
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PAUL J. MILLS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeals from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court Nos. 2021-CR-123 and 2021-CR-146
Judgments Reversed
Date of Decision: August 15, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Rob C. Wiesenmayer, II for Appellant
Joshua A. Muhlenkamp for Appellee
Case Nos. 2-22-09 and 2-22-10
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Paul J. Mills (“Mills”) appeals the judgments of
the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court did not
properly apply his jail-time credit at sentencing. For the reasons set forth below,
the judgments of the trial court are reversed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On December 18, 2020, Mills was placed on post-release control
supervision. Doc. 21A.1 On August 13, 2021, Mills was indicted on one count of
escape in violation of R.C. 2921.34(A)(3), a felony of the fifth degree. Doc. 1A.
The State alleged that Mills absconded supervision on May 14, 2021. Doc. 21A.
This charge became the basis of Case No. 2021-CR-0146. Doc. 1A.
{¶3} On July 22, 2021, Mills was indicted on one count of tampering with
evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a felony of the third degree, and one
count of possession of drugs in violation of 2925.11(A)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth
degree. Doc. 1B. The State alleged these offenses occurred on July 14, 2021. Doc.
18B. These charges formed the basis of Case No. 2021-CR-0123. Doc. 1B.
{¶4} At a hearing on February 21, 2022, Mills pled guilty to the charge of
escape in Case No. 2021-CR-0146 and to the charges of tampering with evidence
1
This appeal comes from two cases. The docket numbers for Case No. 2021-CR-0146 will be followed by
the letter “A.” The docket numbers for Case No. 2021-CR-0123 will be followed by the letter “B.”
-2-
Case Nos. 2-22-09 and 2-22-10
and possession of drugs in Case No. 2022-CR-0123.2 Doc. 43A, 42B. After
accepting these guilty pleas, the trial court proceeded to sentencing Mills. Tr. 27-
29. The trial court ordered the prison terms for the three felony charges to be served
consecutively to each other, imposing a total prison term of fifty-nine months for
these offenses. Tr. 54.
{¶5} At sentencing, the trial court also terminated Mills’s post-release
control and decided that a prison term was an appropriate sanction for his post-
release control violation. Tr. 53. The trial court indicated that Mills had 916 days
remaining on his post-release control at the time that he was confined. Tr. 19-20.
The trial court then subtracted the 207 days of jail-time credit that Mills had accrued
from this 916-day figure, arriving at 709 days. Tr. 19. The trial court imposed a
709-day prison term for Mills’s post-release control violation and ran this sentence
consecutively to his felony sentences. Tr. 53. The trial court only applied the jail-
time credit to Mills’s prison term for the post-release control violation and did not
apply any jail-time credit to his felony sentences. Tr. 19-21, 53. The trial court
issued its judgment entries of sentencing on February 23, 2022. Doc. 44A, 43B.
Assignment of Error
{¶6} Mills filed his notices of appeal on March 18, 2022. Doc. 58A, 58B.
On appeal, he raises the following assignment of error:
2
Mills signed the two plea agreements on February 19, 2022. Doc. 43A, 42B. He appeared before the trial
court on February 21, 2022. Tr. 3. The plea agreements were filed on February 23, 2022. Doc. 43A, 42B.
-3-
Case Nos. 2-22-09 and 2-22-10
The trial court failed to properly apply the Defendant-Appellant’s
jail time credit as required by law.
Mills also argues that the trial court incorrectly concluded that he had 207 days of
jail-time credit when he had accrued 216 days of jail-time credit.
Legal Standard
{¶7} “R.C. 2929.141 governs sentencing for a felony offense committed
while on post-release control * * *.” State v. Murray, 4th Dist. Highland No.
16CA24, 2017-Ohio-1293, ¶ 10. R.C. 2929.141(A) reads, in its relevant part, as
follows:
(A) Upon the conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony by a person
on post-release control at the time of the commission of the felony,
the court may terminate the term of post-release control, and the
court may * * *:
(1) In addition to any prison term for the new felony, impose a
prison term for the post-release control violation. The maximum
prison term for the violation shall be the greater of twelve months
or the period of post-release control for the earlier felony minus any
time the person has spent under post-release control for the earlier
felony. * * * A prison term imposed for the violation shall be
served consecutively to any prison term imposed for the new
felony. The imposition of a prison term for the post-release
control violation shall terminate the period of post-release control
for the earlier felony.
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.141(A).
Accordingly, by the statute’s plain language, the relevant time for
determining the amount of time remaining on an offender’s post-
release control is at sentencing when post-release control is
terminated by the court.
-4-
Case Nos. 2-22-09 and 2-22-10
State v. Evilsizor, 2d Dist. Champaign Nos. 2017-CA-1 and 2017-CA-10, 2018-
Ohio-3599, ¶ 20.
{¶8} Next, “R.C. 2967.191 governs jail-time credit for prison terms * * *.”
State v. Fuller, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-13-06, 2013-Ohio-5661, ¶ 19. R.C. 2967.191
reads, in its relevant part, as follows:
The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the
prison term of a prisoner * * * 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 * * *.
R.C. 2967.191(A). “While the wording of this provision is directed at the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, the trial court is to determine ‘the
number of days of confinement that a defendant is entitled to have credited toward
his sentence.’” State v. Cunningham, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-20-45, 2021-Ohio-
1861, ¶ 6, quoting State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d
476, 2003-Ohio-2061, 786 N.E.2d 1286, ¶ 7.
Legal Analysis
{¶9} In this case, Mills committed the felony offenses alleged in Case No.
2021-CR-0123 and Case No. 2021-CR-0146 while he was subject to post-release
control. Tr. 53. At sentencing, the trial court decided to impose a prison term for
this post-release control violation. Tr. 53. But the trial court could not impose a
prison term that exceeded the limitations set forth in R.C. 2929.141(A)(1), which
reads, in its relevant part, as follows:
-5-
Case Nos. 2-22-09 and 2-22-10
The maximum prison term for the violation shall be the greater
of twelve months or the period of post-release control for the earlier
felony minus any time the person has spent under post-release
control for the earlier felony.
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.141(A)(1). See State v. Krouskoupf, 5th Dist.
Muskingum No. CT2019-0066, 2020-Ohio-1220, ¶ 14.
{¶10} In determining the maximum sentence, the trial court had to calculate
the amount of time that Mills had remaining on post-release control. In this case,
Mills’s post-release control was terminated by the trial court at his sentencing in
February of 2022. Tr. 53. The record does not contain any indication that Mills’s
post-release control was administratively revoked at an earlier time. See Evilsizor,
supra, at ¶ 21. Thus, Mills continued to serve time on post-release control until his
sentencing in February of 2022. See State v. Harris, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-
130442, 2014-Ohio-4237, ¶ 40. For this reason, in calculating the amount of time
remaining on Mills’s post-release control, the trial court could not include the time
he had spent in jail before his post-release control was terminated at his sentencing
in February of 2022.
{¶11} At sentencing, the parties agreed that Mills had 709 days remaining on
post-release control, and the trial court did impose a prison terms of 709 days for
the post-release control violation. Tr. 17, 53. However, the trial court reached the
total of 709 days by subtracting 207 of the jail-time credit days that Mills had
accrued from the 916 days that he had remaining on his post-release control at the
-6-
Case Nos. 2-22-09 and 2-22-10
time of his initial confinement. Tr. 19-21. In so acting, the trial court did not treat
the time that Mills spent in jail as time that Mills had spent on post-release control.
Rather, the trial court acted as though Mills’s post-release control was terminated at
the time he was initially confined in jail. See State v. Wells, 5th Dist. Licking No.
14-CA-36, 2015-Ohio-39, ¶ 8.
{¶12} In other words, the trial court should have reached a total of 709 days
for Mills’s maximum sentence for the post-release control violation without
applying any jail-time credit. The 709 days was the amount of time remaining on
post-release control when the matter came on for sentencing and the court
terminated the post-release control. The trial court’s initial figure for the number of
days remaining on Mills’s post-release control (916 days) was inflated by the
number of days that Mills had spent in jail. Tr. 19-20. Thus, by applying Mills’s
jail-time credit to a prison term that was inflated by the amount of time that he had
been confined in jail, the trial court effectively denied Mills the benefit of receiving
any of the jail-time credit towards the sentence for the new felony convictions.
{¶13} In conclusion, as the State concedes in its brief, the trial court did not
correctly apply the jail-time credit that Mills had accrued when it sentenced Mills
in this case. Appellee’s Brief, 2. Further, we also note that, in their briefs, the
parties also agree that Mills had accrued 216 days of jail-time credit rather than 207
days of jail-time credit. Appellant’s Brief, 4; Appellee’s Brief, 2. Accordingly, we
reverse the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand these cases for the trial
-7-
Case Nos. 2-22-09 and 2-22-10
court to (1) properly calculate the amount of time that Mills has remaining on his
post-release control; (2) recalculate the amount of jail-time credit that Mills has
accrued; and (3) apply the correct amount of jail-time credit in accordance with R.C.
2967.191(A). Mills’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
Conclusion
{¶14} Having found error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgments of the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas
are reversed. These causes of action are remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgments Reversed
And Causes Remanded
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.
/hls
-8-