Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake
Criminal Appeals from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas,
Case Nos. 2016 CR 000846 and 2016 CR 000928.
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Karen A.
Sheppert, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration
Building, (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Perkins, pro se, PID: #A700-440, Lake Erie Correctional
JANE TRAPP, J.
Appellant, Shane Perkins, appeals from the judgment of the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas denying his pro se motion
for jail-time credit in two separate criminal cases. After a
careful review of the record and pertinent law, we affirm the
trial court's judgment.
History and Procedural Background
On August 16, 2016, Mr. Perkins was arrested and incarcerated
in the Lake County jail after being involved in a head-on
motor vehicle collision. He posted bond on August 23, 2016
and was released.
On September 16, 2016, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted
Mr. Perkins on several unrelated charges in Case No.
16-CR-000846. On October 5, 2016, Mr. Perkins was arrested
for these charges and incarcerated in the Lake County jail.
He posted bond on October 7, 2016 and was released.
On January 5, 2017, the trial court revoked Mr. Perkins'
bond in both cases, and he was incarcerated in the Lake
County jail on January 20, 2017.
On February 3, 2017, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted Mr.
Perkins on several charges in Case No. 16-CR-000928 which
related to the head-on collision.
On March 7, 2017, Mr. Perkins pleaded guilty in Case No.
16-000846 to two counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs,
felonies of the fourth degree in violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(1), with forfeiture specifications as set forth in
R.C. 2941.1417 and R.C. 2981.04. On April 13, 2017, the trial
court sentenced Mr. Perkins to a prison term of 10 months on
each count, to be served consecutively to each other, for a
total prison term of 20 months. The trial court credited him
with 86 days of jail time served and ordered Mr. Perkins to
remain in the Lake County jail pending resolution of Case No.
On May 30, 2017, Mr. Perkins pleaded guilty in Case No.
16-CR-000928 to one count of aggravated vehicular assault, a
felony of the third degree in violation of R.C.
2903.08(A)(1)(a) and one count of operating a vehicle under
the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination
of them, a misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of
R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). On the same date, the trial court
sentenced Mr. Perkins to a mandatory prison term of five
years on the first count and six months in jail on the second
count. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served
concurrent to each other and to the sentence imposed in Case
No. 16-CR-000846. The trial court also credited Mr. Perkins
with 138 days of jail time served.
On May 9, 2018, Mr. Perkins filed a motion containing both
case numbers requesting additional jail-time credit. The
state opposed, and the trial court denied the motion.
Mr. Perkins now brings this consolidated appeal and presents
the following assignment of error for our review:
"The trial court erred when it abused its discretion
when it denied the appellant's motion for jail-time
credit pursuant to Fugate [sic] and Caccamo [sic]."
Mr. Perkins brings this appeal based on the trial court's
denial of his motion for jail-time credit rather than a
direct appeal of his sentence. Previously, motions to correct
errors in determining jail-time credit filed outside the time
allowed for direct appeal were barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. See State v. Smith, 11th Dist. Lake No.
2016-L-107, 2017-Ohio-4124, ¶11. R.C.
2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) now grants the sentencing court continuing
jurisdiction to correct any error in jail-time credit not
previously raised at sentencing. It further authorizes the
offender to file a motion at any time after sentencing to
correct any error made in determining jail-time credit.
Accordingly, Mr. Perkins' appeal is properly before this
We review the trial court's determination as to the
amount of jail-time credit to which Mr. Perkins is entitled
under the "clearly and convincingly" contrary to
law standard. State v. Smith, 11th Dist. Geauga No.
2014-G-3185, 2014-Ohio-5076, ¶15; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2);
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,
As the Supreme Court of Ohio has explained, the practice of
awarding jail-time credit has its roots in the Equal
Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States
Constitutions. State v. Fugate,117 Ohio St.3d 261,
2008-Ohio-856, ¶7. Since the Equal Protection Clause
does not tolerate disparate treatment of defendants based
solely on their economic status, the United States Supreme
Court has repeatedly struck down rules and practices that
discriminate against defendants based solely on their
inability to pay fines and fees. Id. Accordingly,
when a prisoner is unable to make bail ...