State v. Chambers

[Cite as State v. Chambers, 

.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                   :

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             :
                                                     Nos. 114634, 114635, and 114636
                v.                               :

TIMMY CHAMBERS, JR.,                             :

                Defendant-Appellee.              :


                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 22, 2025


         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
         Case Nos. CR-21-657311-A, CR-21-659496-A, and CR-23-683848-A


                                           Appearances:

                Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                Attorney, and Gregory J. Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting
                Attorney, for appellant.

                Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
                Rick L. Ferrara, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.


ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:

                  In these consolidated cases, plaintiff-appellant State of Ohio (“State”)

appeals the trial court’s application of jail-time credit separately to multiple prison

sentences that were ordered to run consecutively. Defendant-appellee Timothy
Chambers, Jr. (“Chambers”) concedes that reversible error occurred pursuant to

Loc.App.R. 16(B).1

                In a conceded-error case, where a party concedes the presence of a

dispositive reversible error, this court conducts its own examination of the record to

determine whether the concession accurately reflects settled law. State v. Green,

 (8th Dist.); State v. Forbes, 

 (8th Dist.);

Cleveland v. Patterson, 

, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.); and Loc.App.R. 16(B).

                Following a thorough review of the record and law, this court vacates

the judgments granting the 197-day jail-time credit in each case. CR-23-683848 is

remanded to the trial court to grant an additional 151 days of jail-time credit. When

added to the 46 days of jail-time credit previously granted in that case, this totals the

197 days of credit to which Chambers is entitled.

                In CR-21-657311, on February 22, 2022, Chambers pleaded guilty to

one count of drug trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a fourth-degree

felony as amended, and was sentenced to a one-year term of community-control

sanctions (“CCS”) carrying an 18-month prison sentence for violating the CCS

conditions.

                In CR-21-659496, also on February 22, 2022, Chambers pleaded

guilty to one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a fourth-


       1 Loc.App.R. 16(B) provides: “Notice of Conceded Error.      When a party concedes
an error that is dispositive of the entire appeal, the party conceding the error shall file a
separate notice of conceded error in lieu of a responsive brief. Once briefing is completed,
the appeal will be randomly assigned to a merit panel for review. The appeal will be
submitted on the briefs unless the assigned panel sets an oral argument date.”
degree felony, as amended. Chambers was sentenced to one-year of CCS, subject to

the imposition of an 18-month prison sentence for violating the CCS conditions.

              On September 19, 2023, Chambers appeared before the trial court for

violating CCS in CR-21-657311 and CR-21-659496. CCS was terminated, and the

trial court imposed an 18-month prison sentence on each case to be served

consecutively. Also on that day, in CR-23-683848, Chambers pleaded guilty to one

count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a fifth-degree felony as

charged. Chambers was sentenced to a prison term of 12 months to be served

consecutively to CR-21-657311 and CR-21-659496.

              Subsequently, Chambers filed a motion for jail-time credit for 197

days in CR-21-657311, CR-21-659496, and CR-23-683848-A. The motion requested

credit for all jail-time awaiting commitment pursuant to R.C. 2949.08. Chambers

explained that the trial court had properly granted eight days of jail-time credit in

CR-21-657311 and 46 days in CR-23-683848 but that he was entitled to a total of 197

days. The motion provided, “Chambers respectfully requests that this Honorable

Court grant him 143 days jail-time credit in addition to the [eight days of] post-

sentencing transport time received in CR-21-657311 and 46 days in CR-23-683848.”

              The trial court granted 197 days of jail-time credit in each case. The

State appeals, posing a single assignment of error: The trial court erred when it

applied the full amount of jail-time credit separately to multiple prison sentences

that were ordered to run consecutively. Chambers agrees.
               R.C. 2967.191 requires the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

Correction to “reduce” the prison term of a prisoner “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.” In State v. Fugate, 

, the

Ohio Supreme Court noted that “[w]hen a defendant is sentenced to consecutive

terms, the terms of imprisonment are served one after another, [and] 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.” Id. at ¶ 22. Neither R.C. 2967.191 nor

Fugate prohibit a court from dividing the full amount of jail-time credit between two

or more case numbers.

               The essential requirement is that the consecutive sentence is reduced

by the full amount of jail-time credit. A defendant is not entitled to an application

of the full amount of jail-time credit separately to multiple convictions in a way that

results in receiving the full amount more than once. State v. Bennett, 2020-Ohio-

3453, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Whitaker, 

, ¶ 9.

               Chambers concedes that he “did not request, nor does the law

support, consecutive jail time credit of 197 days on each case. . . . See Adm.Code

5120-2-04(G): see also State v. Fugate, 

, ¶ 10.” “The net effect of the

trial court’s current order is to give Chambers 591 days jail-time credit, which is

incorrect.”

               The assignment of error is sustained.
                The November 6, 2024 judgment entries granting 197 days of jail-

time credit in each of CR-21-657311, CR-21-659496, and CR-23-683848 are vacated,

leaving a 46-day jail-time credit in CR-23-683848 pursuant to the September 19,

2023 sentencing entry in the case. The parties contend that the trial court previously

granted an eight-day jail-time credit in CR-21-657311.2 However, there is no journal

entry documenting the grant. For that reason, to provide Chambers with the 197

days of jail-time credit to which he is entitled, the trial court shall issue an entry

granting an additional 151 days of jail-time credit in CR-23-683848 to the 46-day

credit imposed in that case, totaling the 197-day credit. Fugate, 

, at

¶ 22. (Where a defendant is sentenced to consecutive terms, application of the jail-

time credit to one term “gives full credit that is due, because the credit reduces the

entire length of the prison sentence.”) 

                Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

       It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

       The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.




       2 The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation’s Notice of Calculation of Sentence filed

with the trial court on October 17, 2023, contains references to the prior grant of an eight-day jail-time credit in CR-21-657311 and the 46-day credit in CR-23-683848.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.



ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCURS;
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART
(WITH SEPARATE OPINION)


MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN
PART:

               Respectfully, I concur in the court’s judgment vacating the trial

court’s judgment entries granting 197 days of jail-time credit in each case. I write

separately because I would remand for the trial court to calculate the appropriate

jail-time credit in each case.

               Loc.App.R. 16(B) provides, in part, that “[w]hen a party concedes an

error that is dispositive of the entire appeal, the party conceding the error shall file

a separate notice of conceded error in lieu of a responsive brief.” Here, Chambers

filed a notice pursuant to this rule conceding that the trial court erred in granting

him 197 days of jail-time credit in each case.

               Both parties agree that the trial court erred in granting Chambers

197 days of jail-time credit in each case separately, and both parties agree that

Chambers is entitled to 197 days, in total, across all three cases. However, how

those 197 days are to be allocated across the three cases is not conceded by the

parties and is not the issue before us.
               For these reasons, I concur in part and dissent from the portion of

the majority’s decision ordering the trial court to grant Chambers an additional 151

days of jail-time credit in Case No. CR-23-683848 and would remand for the trial

court to calculate the correct jail-time credit in each case.