JIMMIE L. WASHINGTON Plaintiff
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
to S.C. Reporter 11/7/17
H. Harcha, IV Assistant Attorney General.
PETERSON MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Patrick M. McGrath Judge.
On August 16, 2017, defendant filed a motion pursuant to
Civ.R. 56(B) for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not file a
response. The motion is now before the court for a non-oral
hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D).
Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:
"Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written
admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written
stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except
as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be
rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation,
and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable
minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is
adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary
judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the
evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the
party's favor." See also Gilbert v. Summit
Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317
According to the complaint, plaintiff was an inmate in the
custody and control of defendant. The complaint provides that
on December 15, 2010, plaintiff was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment, apparently following an appeal from his
original sentence. Plaintiff alleges that his lawful term of
imprisonment expired when the "trial court failed to
invoke a timely denovo 'sentencing' hearing after the
Court of Appeals remand. The trial court lost its
jurisdiction to impose a sentence." Complaint at ¶
7. The complaint further provides that due to the alleged
delay in holding a sentencing hearing, the sentence imposed
on December 15, 2010 is void. The complaint concludes that
"plaintiff suffered false imprisonment dating from
December 15, 2010 until his release on March 24, 2016."
Id. at ¶ 9.
Defendant argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to review
the decisions of other courts and that, to the extent
plaintiff challenges the trial court's jurisdiction to
impose a sentence, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider
such a claim. Indeed, the court has no appellate jurisdiction
to review any alleged errors in the sentencing entry.
Foreman v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr ., 10th
Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-15, 2014-Ohio-2793, ¶ 16.
Turning to plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment,
defendant argues that it confined plaintiff at all times
pursuant to facially valid sentencing entries. In support of
its motion, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Charlene
Gregory who is employed as a Correctional Records Sentence
Computation Auditor. Defendant also submitted the indictment,
sentencing entries, and decision of the court of appeals.
Gregory avers that on August 19, 2009, plaintiff was
sentenced in Summit County following a jury trial where he
was convicted of aggravated robbery, theft, and a firearm
specification. Plaintiff was sentenced to a definite term of
four years for aggravated robbery to run concurrent to one
year for theft. That sentence was to run consecutive to three
years for a firearm specification. Plaintiff was admitted to
defendant's custody on August 27, 2009 and plaintiff was
given eight days jail credit from the time of sentencing up
to plaintiff's entry into defendant's custody.
On December 23, 2009, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas
granted plaintiff 146 additional days of jail time credit,
bringing plaintiffs total jail credit to 153 days. Plaintiffs
release date was set for March 24, 2016.
Following an appeal to the Ninth District Court of Appeals,
on December 15, 2010, plaintiff was resentenced to four years
for aggravated robbery plus three years on the firearm
specification. Plaintiff was not resentenced on the charge of
theft. Gregory avers that plaintiffs release date was
recalculated and his sentence began to run on January 6,
2011. Plaintiff was given jail time credit for 650 days.
Plaintiffs release date was set as March 24, 2016.
Gregory avers that there was nothing about the August 19,
2009 or the December 15, 2010 entries that caused defendant
to believe they were not accurate. Gregory concludes that at
all times plaintiff was ...