Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Boyd

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Ottawa

March 2, 2018

State of Ohio Appellee
v.
Bryant Boyd Appellant

         Trial Court No. 17 CR 008

          James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Barbara Galle Rivas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

          James J. Popil, for appellant.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT

          JENSEN, J.

         {¶ 1} Following his guilty plea, defendant-appellant, Bryant Boyd, appeals his conviction and sentences entered by the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

          {¶ 2} On February 24, 2016, the Ottawa County Grand Jury returned a five count indictment against appellant in case No. 2016-CR-I 020A (the "2016 case"). The indictment charged three counts of trafficking heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) and two counts of possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). The offenses charged in the 2016 indictment involved crimes that were alleged to have occurred between September 21, 2015 and December 2, 2015.

         {¶ 3} On February 1, 2017, the Ottawa County Grand Jury returned a four count indictment against appellant in case No. 2017-CR-I 008A (the "2017 case"). The indictment charged one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), a felony of the third degree ("count one"); one count of trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree ("count two"); one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the fifth degree ("count three"); and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1), a misdemeanor of the fourth degree ("count four"). The offenses charged in the 2017 indictment involved crimes that were alleged to have occurred on or about January 18, 2017. Appellant was given 71 days of jail time credit in the 2017 case.

         {¶ 4} On April 12, 2017, appellant entered a plea of guilty to all four counts alleged in the 2017 case. In exchange, the state of Ohio promised to dismiss the 2016 case. During the allocution stage of the hearing, appellant initially refused to accept responsibility for the allegations set forth in count three of the 2017 case. Specifically, appellant claimed that fentanyl found in a house he "wasn't in" did not belong to him. The state indicated, "In order for this plea agreement to work, [appellant] has to admit his guilt as to the possession. Without that, we need to essentially renegotiate * * * or go to trial." A brief recess was held. Thereafter, appellant indicated he agreed to the facts set forth on the record by the state of Ohio.

         {¶ 5} The trial court found that appellant made a knowing, intelligent, voluntary decision to withdraw his previous not guilty plea and tender a plea of guilty to all four counts in the 2017 case. The trial court sentenced appellant to 36 months in prison as to count one, 18 months in prison as to count two, 12 months in prison as to count three, and 30 days of incarceration as to count four. The trial court ordered the sentences in counts one, two, and three to run consecutive to one another and concurrent with the sentence imposed in count four, for a total of 66 months in prison. Appellant was given jail time credit for 71 days served in the 2017 case.

         {¶ 6} Appellant timely appealed, raising three assignments of error.

         FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

         {¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts: "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO CREDIT APPELLANT WITH THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS OF JAIL TIME SERVED." Appellant argues the trial court erred when it failed to grant jail time credit for approximately eight months he was confined while awaiting trial in the 2016 case.

         {¶ 8} In response, the state contends that the trial court cannot grant jail time credit for time appellant was confined in the 2016 case because the 2016 case arose from facts separate and apart from those on which his sentence in this matter is based. We agree.

         {¶ 9} R.C. 2967.191 governs the issue of jail time credit. It provides that a prison term shall be reduced "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, including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial." (Emphasis added.) Id. These reasons include "confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial, confinement for examination to determine the prisoner's competence to stand trial or sanity, confinement while awaiting ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.