[Cite as State v. Roweton,
2025-Ohio-2027.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MIAMI COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 2025-CA-6
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case Nos. 2023 CRB 01291;
v. : 2021 TRC 07977; 2023 TRC 02749
:
DANIEL L. ROWETON : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on June 6, 2025, the judgments of the
trial court are reversed in part and remanded for resentencing on jail-time credit only. In all
other aspects, the judgments are affirmed.
Costs to be paid 50% by Appellant and 50% by Appellee.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, PRESIDING JUDGE
MICHAEL L. TUCKER, JUDGE
-2-
ROBERT G. HANSEMAN, JUDGE
-3-
OPINION
MIAMI C.A. No. 2025-CA-6
CHRISTOPHER BAZELEY, Attorney for Appellant
LENEE BROSH, Attorney for Appellee
EPLEY, P.J.
{¶ 1} Daniel L. Roweton appeals from the reimposition of his suspended
misdemeanor jail sentences in three cases. He claims that the trial court erred in imposing
consecutive sentences with an aggregate term beyond the statutory limit and in failing to
calculate the amount of jail-time credit to which he was entitled. For the following reasons,
the trial court’s judgments are reversed in part, and the matters are remanded for the trial
court to calculate in each case the total number of days for which Roweton is to be given
jail-time credit. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.
I. Procedural History
{¶ 2} On November 17, 2021, a witness called the Troy Police Department to report
an intoxicated driver with open containers within his blue Dodge SUV. An officer located
the vehicle, found that the driver, Roweton, was impaired, and observed multiple open Bud
Light bottles in the vehicle. Roweton refused to submit to field sobriety tests. The officer
charged him with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OVI) and
driving under suspension (Miami M.C. No. 2021 TRC 7977). It also cited him for open
containers (Miami M.C. No. 2021 CRB 3487).
{¶ 3} In March 2022, Roweton pled guilty to OVI (third offense in ten years), and the
other two charges were dismissed. The trial court sentenced him to 365 days in jail with
-4-
335 days suspended, required him to complete a drug/alcohol addiction program, and
placed him on community control for five years. The court imposed a $850 fine, plus court
costs, and suspended his driver’s license for three years. Roweton did not appeal.
{¶ 4} By late February 2023, it appeared that Roweton had absconded (his last
contact with the probation department had been in October 2022), and the trial court issued
a capias for his arrest.
{¶ 5} On May 13, 2023, Roweton was driving on Eldean Road in Miami County when
he veered into oncoming traffic, causing Deputy Brazel of the Miami County Sheriff’s Office
to swerve onto the berm and off the roadway. The deputy turned his cruiser around and
attempted to initiate a traffic stop, but Roweton failed to comply. Roweton eventually
stopped and exited his vehicle. Roweton refused to provide his name and was
uncooperative. Closed and open beer containers were in the vehicle, and Roweton
appeared to be intoxicated. He was charged in Miami M.C. No. 2023 CRB 1291 with failure
to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, obstructing official business, and open
container, and in Miami M.C. No. 2023 TRC 2749 with OVI, driving under an OVI
suspension, and a marked lanes violation. He was also detained on his 2021 case.
{¶ 6} The next day, Roweton received a probation violation notice in his 2021 OVI
case, alleging that he had violated the terms of his community control in four respects:
(1) failing to keep his address current; (2) failing to serve the required 30 days in jail;
(3) failing to complete or verify completing a drug/alcohol evaluation; and (4) absconding.
{¶ 7} After a community control revocation hearing on June 2, 2023, during which
Roweton admitted to the violations, the trial court revoked Roweton’s community control
sanctions and ordered him to serve the imposed jail term with credit for time served. The
trial court did not indicate at the hearing the amount of jail-time credit that Roweton would
-5-
receive. Approximately two weeks later, the clerk of court filed a “Commitment after
Conviction and Sentence to County Jail” document, which indicated that Roweton was
entitled to jail-time credit for 21 days for May 13, 2023 to June 2, 2023.
{¶ 8} On June 28, 2023, Roweton pled guilty to OVI (third offense in ten years) in
Case No. 2023 TRC 2749 and to failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer
in Case No. 2023 CRB 1291. In exchange for the pleas, the State dismissed the remaining
charges. The court proceeded immediately to sentencing, at which it imposed 180 days in
jail for failure to comply, to be served consecutively to “all other jail time,” and ordered him
to pay court costs. As for the OVI offense, the court sentenced him to 360 days in jail, again
to be served consecutively to “all other jail time.” Roweton was ordered to pay a $850 fine,
plus court costs, and the court suspended his driver’s license for 12 years.
{¶ 9} The court told Roweton that it was unlikely that he would be required to serve
all the imposed jail time. It stated:
[E]ssentially you’ve got a year and a half jail hanging over your head. That’s
the maximum you can do. It is very unlikely I will make you do all of that jail
time, sir[,] so after you’ve done a reasonable portion of jail time, I will consider
a motion to mitigate but Mr. Roweton, you have to understand. I mean, you’re
an alcoholic and you can’t stop drinking. I don’t think, we tried to get you help.
Wouldn’t get any help so I don’t think I’m going to consider you for probation.
I might if Kennedy comes to me and convinces me that you’re ready for help
but if you do that after six months and you get out and you screw up again,
now you’re facing another eighteen months in jail because you got over, over
two years of jail hanging over your head or close to it so we’ll see what
happens. That’s it. Thank you, sir.
-6-
{¶ 10} The trial court’s written judgments indicated that the jail sentences in the two
2023 cases were consecutive to “all.” The commitment document, filed July 18, 2023,
indicated that the aggregate jail term for the two 2023 cases was 540 days. It also indicated
that the “in” date at the jail for those cases was June 28, 2023 (the date of sentencing), and
the “out” date was November 7, 2024.
{¶ 11} On July 20, 2023, purportedly pursuant to R.C. 2929.51 (which was repealed
in 2004), Roweton filed a motion for time served, asking that he be released as to all three
cases with credit for time served and that the balance of his jail sentences be suspended
without further conditions. On August 14, 2023, the trial court suspended the balance of
his jail terms and placed him on unsupervised community control for five years. The court
placed three conditions on his community control: (1) that he not consume alcohol; (2) that
he not have any violations of the law, including traffic violations; and (3) that he report any
police contact within 24 hours to the probation department.
{¶ 12} On December 31, 2024, the probation department tested Roweton for
consumption of alcohol, and the test returned a blood alcohol concentration of .176 percent.
Roweton was arrested for violating the terms of his community control. He appeared before
the court on January 2, 2025, and admitted to the violation. At his dispositional hearing on
January 17, 2025, the trial court revoked his community control and reimposed the
suspended sentences with “credit for the time you have served up to this point.” Consistent
with the oral sentence, the written judgment entries stated that Roweton’s “probation is
revoked; jail reimposed with credit for time served.” The commitment document showed
Roweton’s aggregate sentence to be “545 days max” with a release date of March 21, 2026.
{¶ 13} Roweton appeals from the trial court’s judgments, raising two assignments of
error.
-7-
II. Aggregate Length of Roweton’s Jail Sentences
{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Roweton claims that the trial court erred when
it “imposed a sentence that was in excess of the limitation for misdemeanor consecutive
sentences set by R.C. 2929.41.”
{¶ 15} R.C. 2929.41(B)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] jail term or sentence of
imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall be served consecutively to any other prison term, jail
term, or sentence of imprisonment when the trial court specifies that it is to be served
consecutively[.]” When consecutive sentences are imposed for misdemeanors, “the term
to be served is the aggregate of the consecutive terms imposed, except that the aggregate
term to be served shall not exceed eighteen months.” Id.
{¶ 16} Roweton argues that the trial court’s aggregate jail sentence in his three cases
exceeded the 18-month maximum under R.C. 2929.41(B)(1). The State responds that the
trial court did not exceed the 18-month maximum, because the number of days that Roweton
was required to serve following the reimposition of his suspended sentences was 428 days.
The State calculated this number from the January 22, 2025 commitment document, which
showed a jail “in” date of January 17, 2025, and an “out” date of March 21, 2026.
{¶ 17} We disagree with the State’s argument. First, the amount of time that
Roweton had remaining to serve on his three jail terms is not reflective of the trial court’s
aggregate jail sentence. We therefore reject the State’s contention that the trial court’s
sentence was proper because he had 428 days (approximately one year and two months)
remaining as of January 17, 2025. Second, the State refers to the clerk of court’s
commitment document as the “record of conviction” for purposes of R.C. 2949.08, the jail-
time credit statute. However, a trial court speaks through its journal entries. State v. Miller,
2010-Ohio-5705, ¶ 12. Accordingly, the trial court’s sentences for the 2023 cases were
-8-
established in the June 28, 2023 judgment entries for those cases, not the commitment
document that the municipal court provided to the jail.
{¶ 18} The June 28, 2023 judgments imposed 180-day and 360-day jail sentences to
be served consecutively to “all.” The court did not specify either orally or in its judgment
entries the specific case(s) and charge(s) encompassed by “all.” The commitment
document informed the jail that Roweton would begin serving a 540-day aggregate sentence
in the 2023 cases immediately, thus suggesting that the 2023 sentences would be served
consecutively to each other but concurrently with the 2021 sentence, a sentence consistent
with the 18-month limitation in R.C. 2929.41(B)(1).
{¶ 19} Regardless, Roweton did not file a direct appeal from the June 28, 2023
judgments of conviction, and res judicata now bars his challenge to his 2023 jail sentences.
See State v. Kolodzaike, 2020-Ohio-1239, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.) (challenge to an order that
defendant serve the remaining balance of his suspended sentences was an attack on the
original sentence, which should have been raised on direct appeal). Under the doctrine of
res judicata, “a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented
by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment,
any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised
by the defendant . . . on an appeal from that judgment.” State v. Perry,
10 Ohio St.2d 175
(1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus; State v. Moody,
2024-Ohio-864, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.). It
is well established that res judicata bars the consideration of issues that could have been
raised on direct appeal. State v. Saxon,
2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 17; State v. Shah, 2023-Ohio-
2328, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). Roweton could have challenged the aggregate length of his jail
sentences in a direct appeal from his June 28, 2023 judgments but did not.
{¶ 20} The trial court had authority under the misdemeanor jail term statute to later
-9-
modify Roweton’s jail sentences. See R.C. 2929.24(B)(1); Olmsted Twp. v. Ritchie, 2023-
Ohio-2516. R.C. 2929.24(B)(1) provides: “A court that sentences an offender to a jail term
under this section may permit the offender to serve the sentence in intermittent confinement
or may authorize a limited release of the offender as provided in [R.C. 2929.26(B)]. The
court retains jurisdiction over every offender sentenced to jail to modify the jail sentence
imposed at any time, but the court shall not reduce any mandatory jail term.”
{¶ 21} Here, the trial court never modified its original sentences. When the court
released Roweton in August 2023, it suspended the sentences in the 2023 cases, as well
as the 365-day sentence in the 2021 case, and those sentences were “reimposed” when
Roweton’s release was revoked on January 17, 2025. Because the court did not modify
any of the jail sentences when it ordered Roweton to serve the suspended sentences,
Roweton’s challenge to the length of his aggregate jail sentence is barred by res judicata.
{¶ 22} Roweton’s first assignment of error is overruled.
III. Jail-Time Credit
{¶ 23} In his second assignment of error, Roweton claims that the trial court erred
when it failed to calculate the amount of jail-time credit he was entitled to receive. The State
concedes that the trial court erred in failing to inform Roweton of his jail-time credit at
sentencing. We agree.
{¶ 24} “Whether a defendant is convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor offense,
under Ohio law, both are afforded jail-time credit for time served.” State v. Jack, 2024-Ohio-
5594, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), quoting Bratenahl v. Eldridge, 2021-Ohio-1083, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.). The
concept of jail-time credit “is codified in R.C. 2967.191 for offenders sentenced to prison,
and in R.C. 2949.08 for offenders sentenced to jail.” State v. Smiley,
2013-Ohio-4495, ¶ 8
(8th Dist.), citing State v. Hargrove,
2013-Ohio-1860, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.). “Both statutes require
-10-
a sentence to be reduced by the total number of days an offender was confined ‘for any
reason arising out of the offense’ for which the offender was convicted and sentenced.” Id.,
citing R.C. 2967.191 and 2949.08(C)(1).
{¶ 25} Specific to this appeal, when a trial court sentences a person convicted of a
misdemeanor to a jail term, it is required to “specify the total number of days, if any, that the
person was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the person was
convicted and sentenced” so that the person’s sentence is appropriately reduced. R.C.
2949.08(B), (C). The statute’s terms are mandatory, and a court’s failure to properly
calculate jail-time credit and to include it in the body of the judgment entry constitutes plain
error. Jack at ¶ 17-18.
{¶ 26} None of the records for the three cases specify the number of days of jail-time
credit to which Roweton was entitled as of January 17, 2025, when his suspended sentences
were reinstated. The January 22, 2025 commitment document indicated that the “out” date
from the jail considered credit for time served, but this is insufficient to satisfy the terms of
R.C. 2949.08. Rather, on remand, the trial court must calculate the number of days of jail-
time credit to which Roweton was entitled for each case and resentence him accordingly.
See State ex rel. Mora v. Watson, 2025-Ohio-559, ¶ 10 (jail-time credit is offense specific).
{¶ 27} Roweton’s second assignment of error is sustained.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 28} The trial court’s judgments are reversed, in part, and the matters are remanded
for the trial court to calculate in each case the total number of days for which Roweton is to
be given jail-time credit. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.
.............
-11-
TUCKER, J. and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
