[Cite as State v. Ochoa,
2023-Ohio-978.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 5-22-19
v.
RODOLFO S. OCHOA, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 5-22-20
v.
RODOLFO S. OCHOA, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 5-22-22
v.
RODOLFO S. OCHOA, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Case No. 5-22-19, 5-22-20 and 5-22-22
Appeals from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court Nos. 2020-CR-288, 2021-CR-440, 2017-CR-112
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 27, 2023
APPEARANCES:
W. Alex Smith for Appellant
Phillip A. Riegle for Appellee
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Rodolfo Ochoa (“Ochoa”) brings this appeal from
the judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County revoking and
terminating community control and imposing prison terms in two other cases. On
appeal, Ochoa argues that the trial court improperly allocated jail credit in violation
of R.C. 2929.41(A). For the reasons set forth below, the judgments are affirmed.
Appellate Case Number 5-22-19
{¶2} On October 6, 2020, the Hancock County Grand Jury indicted Ochoa
on two counts of possession of a controlled substance, both felonies of the fifth
-2-
Case No. 5-22-19, 5-22-20 and 5-22-22
degree. ADoc. 11. Ochoa entered pleas of guilty to both counts on July 8, 2021.
Doc. 32. The trial court accepted the pleas and found Ochoa to be guilty. ADoc.
34. A sentencing hearing was scheduled for October 21, 2021, but Ochoa failed to
appear for the hearing. ADoc. 34 and 37. A bench warrant was issued on November
8, 2021, and Ochoa was taken into custody on January 13, 2022. ADoc. 41. On
July 21, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. ADoc. 55. The trial court
imposed a prison term of ten months on each count and ordered them to be served
concurrently to each other. ADoc. 55. The sentence was also ordered to be served
concurrently to a 17 month prison sentence imposed in appellate case number 05-
22-20, for an aggregate prison term of 17 months. ADoc. 55. The trial court granted
Ochoa 12 days of jail time credit, excluding conveyance time. ADoc. 55. Ochoa
appealed from this judgment. ADoc. 60.
Appellate Case Number 5-22-20
{¶3} On November 2, 2021, the Hancock County Grand Jury indicted Ochoa
on one count of failure to appear, a felony of the fourth degree. BDoc. 1.2 Ochoa
entered a plea of guilty to the indictment on May 9, 2022. BDoc. 16. The trial court
accepted the guilty plea and found Ochoa to be guilty. BDoc. 19. On July 21, 2022,
a sentencing hearing was held and Ochoa was sentenced to a prison term of 17
1
As there are three different records in this case, the docket associated with appellate case number 5-22-19
will be identified as “ADoc.”
2
The docket associated with appellate case number 5-22-20 will be identified as “BDoc.”
-3-
Case No. 5-22-19, 5-22-20 and 5-22-22
months to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed in appellate case number
5-22-19. BDoc. 20. Ochoa appealed from this judgment. BDoc. 24.
Appellate Case Number 5-22-22
{¶4} On March 14, 2017, the Hancock County Grand Jury indicted Ochoa
on one count of failure to appear, a felony of the fourth degree. CDoc. 1. 3 Ochoa
entered a plea of guilty to the indictment on October 2, 2017. CDoc. 23. The trial
court accepted the guilty plea and found Ochoa to be guilty. CDoc. 26. On
December 18, 2017, a sentencing hearing was held and Ochoa was sentenced to five
years of community control with a reserved prison term of 17 months. CDoc. 28.
{¶5} On October 15, 2021, the trial court entered a judgment entry finding
that Ochoa had absconded from the jurisdiction of the trial court and issued a bench
warrant. CDoc. 93 and 97. Ochoa was subsequently arrested on January 13, 2022.
CDoc. 97. A violation hearing was held on July 21, 2022, and the trial court
determined that Ochoa had violated the terms of his community control. CDoc.
103. The trial court then revoked Ochoa’s community control and imposed a prison
term of fifteen months. CDoc. 103. The trial court then made the following finding.
Furthermore, the Defendant was awarded four hundred and fifty
(450) days credit for time previously served and therefore, this
sentence is fulfilled.
3
The docket associated with appellate case number 5-22-22 will be identified as “CDoc.”
-4-
Case No. 5-22-19, 5-22-20 and 5-22-22
CDoc. 103. The trial court then terminated Ochoa from his community control
supervision as unsuccessful. CDoc. 103. Ochoa appealed from this judgment.
CDoc. 108.
{¶6} On the appeal from all three cases, Ochoa raises one assignment of
error.
The trial court erred by improperly allocating jail credit, in
violation of R.C. 2929.41(A).
Ochoa argues that the trial court should have applied the total jail time credit of 462
days to all three cases instead of 450 days credit only being applied to appellate case
number 5-22-22 and the remaining 12 being applied to appellate cases numbered 5-
22-19 and 5-22-20. R.C. 2967.191(A) provides for jail-time credit in situations
where a defendant has been sentenced to prison. The statute mandates that the
prison term of a defendant is to 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”. R.C. 2967.191(A). The “trial court is to
determine ‘the number of days of confinement that a defendant is entitled to have
credited toward his sentence.’” State v. Cunningham, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-20-45,
2021-Ohio-1861, ¶ 6 quoting State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,
98
Ohio St.3d 476,
2003-Ohio-2061,
786 N.E.2d 1286, ¶ 7.
{¶7} This Court has previously addressed how jail time credit is applied to
multiple sentences in Cunningham, supra. The defendant in Cunningham was
-5-
Case No. 5-22-19, 5-22-20 and 5-22-22
sentenced to a probation violation and a new conviction. The trial court applied all
of the jail time credit to the violation, terminating the case as unsuccessful, and,
having used all of the jail time credit, then imposed a 17 month prison term on the
new conviction. Id. at 4. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court erred
in applying all of the jail time credit towards the probation violation. This Court
addressed the general method to be used when calculating jail time credit.
When a defendant is sentenced to consecutive terms, the terms of
imprisonment are served one after another. Jail-time credit
applied to one prison term gives full credit that is due, because the
credit reduces the entire length of the prison sentence. However,
when a defendant is sentenced to concurrent terms, credit must
be applied against all terms, because the sentences are served
simultaneously. If an offender is sentenced to concurrent terms,
applying credit to one term only would in effect, negate the credit
for time that the offender has been held.
State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261,
2008-Ohio-856,
883 N.E.2d 440, ¶ 22.
However, this rule is limited to cases in which sentences are ordered to be served
concurrently, not when a defendant is essentially sentenced to time served for a
community control violation because the community control violation sentence is
not served simultaneously with the sentence for the new offense. Cunningham at ¶
7 quoting State v. Chasteen, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-11-204,
2014-Ohio-3780.
This Court determined that by applying the jail time credit first to the violation of
community control, the trial court was sentencing the defendant to time served on
the violation and then imposing a new sentence on the new conviction. Id. at ¶ 9.
-6-
Case No. 5-22-19, 5-22-20 and 5-22-22
This Court then affirmed the judgment determining that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing the defendant in this manner. Id. at ¶ 15.
{¶8} In this appeal, Ochoa was sentenced for the community control
violation and the two new convictions on July 21, 2022. At the sentencing hearing,
the trial court indicated that Ochoa had accumulated a total of 462 days of jail time
credit between the pending cases (189 days since arrested on the bench warrant) and
the prior time from the 2017 case. Tr. 5. Everyone was in agreement as to that
number. Tr. 6. The trial court then imposed the following sentence.
The Court: What I’m going to do is this: In the 2017 case, which
is the – the community control violation, I agree that for purposes
of that case, I’m going to find that you are no longer amenable to
community control. That case needs to be closed. Ultimately, I
have reserved 17 months on that. You have – between all of these
cases, you have – you have done over 460 days, 462 days. So what
I’m going to do on that case is I’m going to order that you serve
15 months in an institution under the control of the Department.
I’m going to – which is, in the way the Department calculates,
that’s 15 months of 30 days, which means 450 days. So I’m going
to order that you serve 15 months. I’m going to credit 450 days.
Mr. Ochoa: Okay.
The Court: Which essentially, although it’s going to say a prison
sentence, the credit wipes that out.
Mr. Ochoa: Okay.
Tr. 38. In appellate case number 5-22-19, the trial court imposed 10 month prison
terms on each count and ordered them to be served concurrently. Tr. 40. The trial
court then imposed a 17 month prison term in appellate case number 5-22-20 and
-7-
Case No. 5-22-19, 5-22-20 and 5-22-22
ordered that be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in 5-22-19. Tr. 41.
The trial court then credited Ochoa with the remaining 12 days of jail time credit
along with any additional time accrued while awaiting transport. Tr. 41-42.
{¶9} As discussed above, this Court has previously held that a trial court does
not err when it applies jail time credit in this manner. Of the 462 days served before
the hearing, 450 were used as the sentence in the community control violation, thus
terminating that sentence. The remainder was applied to the new and separate
sentences being served after the hearing. “In other words, these two periods of
confinement are not concurrent sentences” because they are not served during the
same time period. Cunningham, supra at ¶ 10 citing Fugate. For this reason, the
assignment of error is overruled.
{¶10} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock
County are affirmed.
Judgments Affirmed
WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.
/hls
-8-
