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. Guiser

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

December 31, 2019

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
KRISTIE M. GUISER Appellant

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR-2014-07-2178(B)

          KRISTIE M. GUISER, pro se, Appellant.

          SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          JENNIFER HENSAL, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Kristie Guiser appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that denied her motion for jail-time credit. For the following reasons, this Court reverses.

         I.

         {¶2} In 2014, Ms. Guiser pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated possession of drugs. The trial court found her guilty of the offense and sentenced her to 30 months of community control, advising her that, if she violated the conditions of her community control, it would sentence her to one year in prison and order it to run consecutive to a sentence she had received in a different case.

         {¶3} Three weeks after sentencing, Ms. Guiser violated the conditions of her community control. The trial court found her guilty of the violation and ordered her to serve one year in prison consecutive to the two-year sentence she had received in a different case. The court credited her 145 days for time she had already served in jail and a community-based correctional facility (CBCF).

         {¶4} After Ms. Guiser served more than 500 days in prison, the trial court granted her judicial release and placed her on two years of community control. Ms. Guiser violated the conditions of her community control three times. The first two times, the court continued her on community control. The third time the trial court sentenced her to one year in prison to be served consecutively to a two-year sentence it had imposed for her community control violation in a different case, for a total of three years imprisonment. It credited her "an aggregate total of 67 days of jail credit * * * since the time she was released from prison on judicial release." The court also wrote in its entry that "Defendant's previously calculated jail time credit prior to the original imposition of sentence, along with the time served in the Ohio State Reformatory for Women, is not included in this calculation."

         {¶5} Ms. Guiser did not appeal her sentence. Instead, she filed a motion for jail-time credit, arguing that she had only received 67 days of credit and that the trial court should have included the time she spent in jail and a CBCF before her first prison stay. The trial court denied her motion. Ms. Guiser subsequently filed a request for a nunc pro tunc entry and a motion to calculate and amend her jail time and prison credit, arguing that the court's jail time credit should have included all of the time she spent in jail, a CBCF, or prison before her judicial release. The trial court denied her motion. Ms. Guiser has appealed, assigning as error that the trial court failed to properly calculate and credit her prior jail and prison time.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW WHERE IT FAILED TO CALCULATE AND CREDIT THE DEFENDANT'S CONFINEMENT (JAIL-TIME) CREDIT AND PRIOR INCARCERATION IN ITS SENTENCING ENTRY.

         {¶6} Ms. Guiser argues that the trial court incorrectly concluded that she was not entitled to any additional jail-time credit. Revised Code Section 2929.19(B)(2)(g)[1] provides that, at sentencing, if a court ...


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.