Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula
Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2015 CR 00380. Judgment: Affirmed.
Nicholas A. Iarocci, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley
M. Pratt, Assistant Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse,
M. Guyton, pro se, (Defendant-Appellant).
Defendant-appellant, Edwin M. Guyton, appeals the judgment of
the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, denying his
Motion for Additional Jail-Time Credit. For the following
reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below.
On February 24, 2016, Guyton was found guilty of two counts
of Operating a Vehicle While Under the Influence following a
jury trial. The trial court ordered Guyton to serve
consecutive prison terms of three and five years on the two
counts. The court further ordered that the aggregate
eight-year sentence "shall be served * * * consecutively
with the sentence imposed by the Ashtabula County Common
Pleas Court, [in] Case Number, 14-CR-446." The court
noted that "[t]he defendant is granted a jail credit of
Fifty-eight (58) days prior [to] this date of sentencing,
to-wit: February 24, 2016."
Guyton's convictions were affirmed on appeal. State
v. Guyton, 2016-Ohio-8110, 74 N.E.3d 939 (11th Dist.).
On September 14, 2018, Guyton filed a Motion for Additional
Jail-Time Credit. Guyton claimed that he "is entitled to
jail-time credit for all of the presentence confinement"
from June 16, 2015 (the date of his arrest), to February 25,
2016 (the day the Judgment Entry of Sentence was journalized)
- a period of 254 days.
On September 24, 2018, the trial court overruled Guyton's
Motion without a hearing. The court noted that Guyton was
only entitled to credit for the days of confinement
"arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was
convicted and sentenced." R.C. 2967.191. As was
acknowledged in the Motion for Additional Jail-Time Credit,
on August 13, 2015, Guyton was sentenced to a two-year term
of imprisonment in Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. 2014 CR 00446. Accordingly, he was only awarded 58
days of jail-time credit in the underlying case (from his
arrest on June 16 until his sentencing on August 13).
The trial court further ruled that, since Guyton was claiming
the court made a legal error as opposed to a mathematical or
clerical error in calculating jail-time credit, his argument
was barred by res judicata. State v. Perry, 7th
Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 177, 2013-Ohio-4370, ¶ 11
("[l]egal arguments concerning jail time credit are
waived if they are not raised in the direct appeal").
On October 15, 2018, Guyton filed a Notice of Appeal. On
appeal, he raises the following assignment of error:
"The trial court erred when it abused its discretion
when it denied the appellant's Motion for Jail-Time
Credit pursuant to Fugate and
We apply the de novo standard of review appropriate to the
review of purely legal issues and/or questions of law.
Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401,
2012-Ohio-3208, 972 N.E.2d 586, passim.
Guyton bases his claim "to jail-time credit for every
day of confinement that the Appellant spen[t] in Ashtabula
County Jail until the resolution of * * * case number:
2015-CR-380," on the Ohio Supreme Court decision in
State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856,
883 N.E.2d 440, and this court's decision in State v.
Caccamo, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2015-L-048, 2016-Ohio-3006.
These cases stand for the proposition that, "when
concurrent prison terms are imposed, courts do not
have the discretion to select only one term from those that
are run concurrently against which to apply
jail-time credit," rather, "R.C. 2967.191 requires
that jail-time credit be applied to all prison terms imposed
for charges on which the offender has ...