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. Campbell

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Erie

September 6, 2019

State of Ohio Appellee
v.
Marcus Campbell Appellant

          Trial Court No. 2013-CR-097

          Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony A. Battista III, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

          Marcus Campbell, pro se.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT

          ZMUDA, J.

         I. Introduction

         {¶ 1} In this accelerated appeal, appellant, Marcus Campbell, appeals the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motion for jail-time credit. Because we find that appellant's request for jail-time credit is barred by res judicata, we affirm.

         A. Facts and Procedural Background

         {¶ 2} On March 5, 2013, appellant was indicted on one count of attempted murder in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A), a felony of the first degree, one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree, one count of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a felony of the first degree, and one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree. Firearm specifications were also attached to the charges for attempted murder, felonious assault, and aggravated robbery.

         {¶ 3} Appellant initially entered a plea of not guilty to the foregoing charges. Following pretrial discovery and plea negotiations, appellant appeared before the trial court for a plea hearing on March 21, 2014. Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant withdrew his not guilty plea, and entered a guilty plea to felonious assault and having weapons while under disability. The state dismissed the remaining charges as well as all firearms specifications. The court then accepted appellant's guilty plea.

         {¶ 4} At sentencing on April 7, 2014, the trial court ordered appellant to serve 7 years in prison on the felonious assault count and 30 months in prison on the having weapons while under disability count. The court imposed these sentences concurrently to one another, but consecutively to the sentences previously imposed in case Nos. 2007-CR-004 and 2011-CR-457. Further, the court credited appellant with 46 days of jail time served as of April 8, 2014. Appellant did not appeal this sentence.

         {¶ 5} On July 15, 2016, appellant filed a "motion to correct jail time credit" with the trial court. In his motion, appellant contended that he was entitled to 313 days of additional jail-time credit for time served in the Erie County Jail and the Lorrain Correctional Institution during the pendency of these proceedings. Appellant contended that he was continuously confined from April 13, 2013 through April 8, 2014, for a total period of 360 days. Thus, appellant argued that the trial court miscalculated his jail-time credit.

         {¶ 6} On December 14, 2016, the trial court issued its decision denying appellant's motion to correct jail-time credit. The trial court found that appellant's calculations of jail-time credit were incorrect because he was confined in connection with his previous convictions during the 313 days for which he was requesting credit. Appellant did not appeal the trial court's denial of his motion.

         {¶ 7} Thereafter, on March 8, 2019, appellant filed a second motion for jail-time credit. In this motion, appellant argued that he was entitled to 247 days of jail-time credit under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. In its April 25, 2019 response to appellant's motion, the state argued that appellant was not entitled to additional jail-time credit for time appellant served on his prior sentences, because the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case was ordered to be served consecutively to the prior sentences.

         {¶ 8} On May 1, 2019, the trial court issued its decision on appellant's motion. In its decision, the trial court found that appellant was not entitled to the additional days of credit he requested, because "[appellant's] cases were to be served consecutively. The additional time requested was already given in the appropriate case. Therefore, [appellant] is not ...


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.