State v. Locker

[Cite as State v. Locker, 2023-Ohio-2533.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 3-22-31
v.
LOGAN LOCKER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 20-CR-0270
Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Decision: July 24, 2023
APPEARANCES:
Howard A. Elliott for Appellant
Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-22-31
MILLER, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Logan Locker (“Locker”), appeals the August 10,
2022 judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas revoking Locker’s
judicial release and imposing a reserved prison sentence. For the reasons that
follow, we reverse.
{¶2} On August 4, 2020, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted Locker
on three counts: Count One of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises
in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(2), (C)(4), a first-degree felony; Count Two of
discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises in violation of R.C.
2923.162(A)(2), (C)(3), a second-degree felony; and Count Three of tampering with
evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a third-degree felony. Locker filed a
written plea of not guilty on August 7, 2020.
{¶3} Locker appeared for a change-of-plea hearing on October 21, 2020. At
the State’s request, the trial court amended Count One and Count Two from the
original charges to negligent assault in violation of R.C. 2903.14(A), (B), third-
degree misdemeanors. Pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement, Locker withdrew
his not guilty pleas and entered guilty pleas to the charges, as amended. The trial
court accepted Locker’s pleas and found him guilty.
{¶4} The trial court proceeded immediately to sentencing. Pursuant to a
joint-sentencing recommendation, the trial court sentenced Locker to 60 days of
-2-
Case No. 3-22-31
local incarceration on Count One and 53 days of local incarceration on Count Two.
The trial court ordered the sentences for Counts One and Two to run consecutively
for an aggregate term of 113 days of local incarceration. With respect to Count
Three, the trial court sentenced Locker to five years of community control. The trial
court informed Locker that, in the event he fails to successfully complete
community control, he was subject to serving up to 36 months in prison.
{¶5} On May 4, 2021, a motion was filed requesting the trial court issue an
order requiring Locker to show cause why his community control should not be
revoked. Specifically, the motion alleged that Locker violated the terms of his
community control by possessing brass knuckles, possessing raw marijuana and a
digital scale, returning a urine-drug screen that tested positive for marijuana,
consuming alcohol, and being present in a bar. At an initial appearance held later
that day, Locker entered a denial to the community-control violation.
{¶6} On June 28, 2021, a second motion was filed requesting the trial court
issue an order requiring Locker to show cause why his community control should
not be revoked. The motion alleged that Locker submitted drug screens that were
positive for marijuana and alcohol. Locker entered an additional denial to this
community-control violation.
{¶7} At a hearing held on July 7, 2021, Locker entered admissions
acknowledging the violations of his community control as outlined in the May 4 and
-3-
Case No. 3-22-31
June 28, 2021 filings. The trial court accepted Locker’s admissions and found him
to have violated his community control. The trial court imposed the reserved term
of 36 months in prison.
{¶8} On January 21, 2022, Locker filed a motion for judicial release. In a
March 28, 2022 judgment entry, the trial court granted Locker’s motion for judicial
release and suspended the remainder of Locker’s prison sentence. In its judgment
entry, the trial court specified that the “remainder of the prison sentence” is
suspended. (Doc. No. 38). The trial court specifically “reserve[d] jurisdiction to
reimpose the remaining prison time.” (Id.).
{¶9} On June 22, 2022, a motion was filed requesting the trial court issue an
order requiring Locker to show cause why his judicial release should not be revoked.
The motion alleged that Locker violated the terms of his judicial release by
submitting a drug screen that tested positive for marijuana on two separate
occasions, failing to report a law-enforcement contact to his supervising officer, and
associating with individuals with previous felony convictions. At a hearing held the
following day, Locker entered a denial to the alleged violations.
{¶10} At a hearing held on August 10, 2022, he withdrew his denial and
entered an admission to the violation of his judicial release conditions. The trial
court then terminated Locker’s judicial release and reimposed the original 36-month
prison sentence.
-4-
Case No. 3-22-31
{¶11} On September 6, 2022, Locker filed a notice of appeal. He raises two
assignments of error for our review, which we address together.
First Assignment of Error
The Trial Court is obligated to announce and determine at the
sentencing hearing how many days of credit the Defendant is
entitled to for time served with respect to the offense at hand and
the failure to do so is error requiring the matter be reversed for
resentencing.
Second Assignment of Error
When a Trial Court revokes community control conditions of an
offender who had previously been granted judicial release it is
error for the Trial Court to reimpose the original prison sentence
without reserving therefrom time previously served in prison on
that sentence requiring that the matter be remanded to the Trial
Court for resentencing.
{¶12} In his first assignment of error, Locker argues the trial court did not
properly impose jail-time credit. In his second assignment of error, Locker argues
the trial court erred by reimposing his full original prison sentence without reducing
it by the time he previously served on that sentence.
Award of Jail-Time Credit
{¶13} The practice of awarding jail-time credit is rooted in the Equal
Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, though it is now
addressed in Ohio state statute. State v. Carpenter, 4th Dist. Meigs No. 16CA11,
2017-Ohio-9038, ¶ 25. One of these statutes, R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i), provides:
-5-
Case No. 3-22-31
[I]f the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing that a
prison term is necessary or required, the court shall * * *:
***
Determine, notify the offender of, and include in the sentencing entry
the total number of days, including the sentencing date but excluding
conveyance time, that the offender has been confined for any reason
arising out of the offense for which the offender is being sentenced
and by which the department of rehabilitation and correction must
reduce the definite prison term imposed on the offender as the
offender’s stated prison term * * *.
Thus, under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i), trial courts have a duty to calculate jail-time
credit at the time of sentencing. State v. Baker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102232,
2015-Ohio-3232, ¶ 14.
{¶14} Here, in the trial court’s August 10, 2022 judgment entry, Locker was
awarded 141 days of jail-time credit. (Doc. No. 44). Locker contends the trial court
erred by not calculating those 141 days on the record at the revocation hearing.
However, at the revocation hearing, Locker did not raise any argument regarding
jail-time credit. Nor did he request a hearing under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(ii), which
provides that in calculating the number of days of jail-time credit, if any, to which
the defendant is entitled, “the court shall consider the arguments of the parties and
conduct a hearing if one is requested.” As a result, Locker has forfeited all but plain
error. Carpenter at ¶ 32; State v. Gordon, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28331, 2017-Ohio-
7147, ¶ 38.
-6-
Case No. 3-22-31
{¶15} We fail to see how Locker was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure
to calculate jail-time credit at the revocation hearing. The trial court’s judgment
entry states that Locker is entitled to jail-time credit. Moreover, Locker is not
necessarily foreclosed from making an argument at a later date that the trial court
miscalculated the number of days of jail-time credit to which he is entitled.
Specifically, R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) provides:
The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any
error not previously raised at sentencing in making a determination
under [R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i)]. The offender may, at any time after
sentencing, file a motion in the sentencing court to correct any error
made in making a determination under [R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i)],
and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that motion.
Thus, under these circumstances, we do not find the trial court committed plain error
by not calculating Locker’s jail-time credit on the record. See Carpenter at ¶ 32;
State v. Depinet, 3d Dist. Shelby Nos. 17-21-06 and 17-21-14, 2022-Ohio-2453, ¶
18; State v. Foust, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-27, 2022-Ohio-3187, ¶ 12.
{¶16} Locker’s first assignment of error is overruled.
Imposition of Prison Sentence
{¶17} In his second assignment of error, Locker argues that the trial court
erred by reimposing the entire original sentence.
{¶18} R.C. 2929.20, which governs judicial release, provides in pertinent
part:
-7-
Case No. 3-22-31
If the court grants a motion for judicial release under this section, the
court shall order the release of the eligible offender * * *, shall place
the offender under an appropriate community control sanction, under
appropriate conditions, and under the supervision of the department
of probation serving the court and shall reserve the right to reimpose
the sentence that it reduced if the offender violates the sanction.
R.C. 2929.20(K). Accordingly, an offender, like Locker, who has been granted
judicial release “‘“has already served a period of incarceration, and the remainder
of that prison sentence is suspended pending either the successful completion of a
period of community control or the [offender’s] violation of a community control
sanction.”’” (Emphasis sic.) Foust, 2022-Ohio-3187, at ¶ 9, quoting State v. Davis,
3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-21-03, 2021-Ohio-3790, ¶ 5, quoting State v. Alexander, 3d
Dist. Union No. 14-07-45, 2008-Ohio-1485, ¶ 7. “While out on judicial release, if
‘an offender violates his community control requirements, the trial court may
reimpose the original prison sentence and require the offender to serve the balance
remaining on the original term.’” State v. Phipps, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-20-07,
2021-Ohio-258, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Mann, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-03-42, 2004-
Ohio-4703, ¶ 8.
{¶19} However, at the August 10, 2022 hearing revoking Locker’s judicial
release, the trial court stated it was going to “reimpose the 36 month prison sentence
in this case.” (Aug. 10, 2022 Tr. at 16-17). Additionally, the attendant judgment
entry states that the trial court “sentences [Locker] to 36 months in prison on Count
3, with jail time credit * * *.” (Doc. No. 44). Accordingly, the record indicates the
-8-
Case No. 3-22-31
trial court imposed the entire 36-month prison term rather than the balance of the
prison term as required by R.C. 2929.20(K).
{¶20} As this court recently held in State v. Foust, “it is our view that
requiring the trial court to reimpose only the balance of the previously imposed
prison sentence, as opposed to reimposing the entire original sentence and then
purporting to deduct credit for both prior ‘prison time’ served as well as prior ‘jail
time’ served * * * is more consistent with the language of R.C. 2929.20(K).” Foust
at ¶ 11. Additionally, requiring the trial court to reimpose only the remaining prison
term is more consistent with the trial court’s March 28, 2022 judgment entry
granting Locker judicial release.
{¶21} Accordingly, Locker’s second assignment of error is sustained.
Conclusion
{¶22} Having found error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars
assigned and argued, we reverse the judgment of the Crawford County Court of
Common Pleas. We remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Judgment Reversed and
Cause Remanded
WILLAMOWSKI and WALDICK, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-9-