Criminal Appeal from (Common Pleas Court Trial Court Case No. 2012-CR-1661
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by MICHELE D. PHIPPS, Atty. Reg. #0069829, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
ANTONY A. ABBOUD, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
(¶ 1} The issue presented in this appeal by Appellant, David L. Ayers, Jr., is whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on the issue of jail time credit. From the time Ayers was indicted until he was sentenced in this case, he was incarcerated at a prison for a conviction arising from an unrelated, separate charge. We conclude that the court is not required to conduct a hearing on jail time credit when the facts necessary to compute the credit are a matter of record and are known to the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
II. Statement of Facts and Procedural History
(¶ 2} On July 23, 2012, David Ayers was indicted for having disobeyed a protection order in violation of R.C. 2919.27(A)(1). At the time, Ayers was serving a three-year sentence at Madison Correctional Institution, based on his prior conviction in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Case No. 2011-CR-1478. On October 17, 2012, the matter proceeded to a bench trial. After the State had presented three witnesses, Ayers agreed to a plea bargain. He then withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty in exchange for an agreed sentence of 12 months incarceration to be served concurrently with the previously-imposed prison sentence.
(¶ 3} After imposing the agreed-upon sentence of 12 months to be served concurrently with the three-year sentence in Case No. 2011-CR-1478, the trial court granted Ayers 15 days of jail credit. Ayers and his Attorney, Tina M. McFall, told the court that Ayers believed he should receive more credit, since he had been held in lieu of bond since July 23, 2012. The trial court noted that because Ayers had been serving a three-year sentence in Case No. 11-CR-1478, the jail credit calculation would be 15 days. Transcript of October 12, 2012 Proceedings, p. 68.
(¶ 4} Ayers appeals from the failure of the trial court to hold a hearing after Ayers raised the issue of jail credit at the sentencing hearing.
III. Did the Trial Court Err in Failing to Conduct a Hearing on Jail Credit?
(¶ 5} Ayers' sole assignment of error states that:
The Trial Court Violated Ayers' Right to Due Process When It Failed to Conduct a Hearing on the Issue of Jail Time Credit.
(¶ 6} Under this assignment of error, we are asked to decide if the facts of record are sufficient to support the trial court's failure to conduct a jail credit hearing. Relying on State v. Nunez, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21495, 2007-Ohio-1054, Ayers claims that the trial court violated his right to due process when it failed to conduct a hearing after he objected to the amount of jail credit. Ayers also contends that once a defendant objects, the State has the burden of showing that the defendant is not entitled to ...