State of Ohio ex rel. David E. Brown, Relator,
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Respondent.
IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
David E. Brown, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Peter L. Jamison, for respondent.
(¶ 1} Relator, David E. Brown, commenced this original action in mandamus seeking an order compelling respondent, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), to credit him with an additional 107 days of jail-time credit. ODRC has filed a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, relator also filed a motion for summary judgment.
(¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, we referred this matter to a magistrate who issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. The magistrate found that ODRC properly calculated relator's jail-time credit in accordance with Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03(C). Therefore, the magistrate has recommended that we deny relator's request for a writ of mandamus and grant summary judgment in favor of ODRC.
(¶ 3} Relator has filed objections to the magistrate's decision. As relator's three objections are interrelated, we will address them together. In essence, relator contends that ODRC improperly relied upon Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03(C) and unlawfully extended his incarceration beyond the five-year sentence imposed by the trial court. We disagree.
(¶ 4} Relator is serving two five-year sentences. Relator received 192 days of jail-time credit on one of the five-year sentences, and 85 days of jail-time credit on the other five-year sentence. The trial court has ordered that these sentences be served concurrently.
(¶ 5} Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03(C) provides:
When multiple definite sentences are imposed to run concurrently, the prisoner shall be deemed to be serving the longest of the sentences so imposed. If, however, the various sentences are subject to different amounts of reduction for jail-time credit and/or are subject to different rates of diminution for time off for good behavior, the prisoner shall be released after serving the longest diminished sentence.
(¶ 6} Based upon Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03(C), the relator will be released after serving the longest diminished sentence. Here, his longest diminished sentence is five years with 85 days of jail-time credit. ODRC based relator's release date on this sentence.
(¶ 7} Contrary to relator's contention, Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03(C) does not usurp the trial court's right to impose sentence. Rather, it clarifies how the trial court's sentence is to be implemented when the trial court imposed concurrent sentences with differing amounts of reduction for jail-time credit.
(¶ 8} Nor does Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03(C) conflict with R.C. 2967.191. As noted by the magistrate, R.C. 2967.191 requires ODRC to reduce the stated 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. Here, it is undisputed that relator received a five-year sentence with 85 days jail-time credit in one of two cases. For these reasons, we overrule relator's objections.
(¶ 9} Following an independent review of this matter, we find that the magistrate has properly determined the facts and applied the appropriate law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, we deny relator's request for a writ of mandamus, deny his motion for summary judgment, and grant ODRC's motion for summary judgment.
relator's motion for summary judgment denied;
respondent's motion for summary judgment granted;