State v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (9-15-2000)
State v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (9-15-2000)
Opinion of the Court
The trial court's rationale is that Martin was receiving treatment while in that Facility and "therefore" she is not entitled to jail time credit because the Facility does not thus meet the definition of incarceration as defined by R.C.
Martin, however, in her brief on appeal, correctly points out that even though an inmate may be receiving "treatment" while confined in a Facility, it does not eliminate the fact that the inmate is actually "confined." The State, in a commendably brief brief, argues that since the General Assembly amended the applicable statute, R.C.
We join all the other appellate courts in their holdings. Without bothering to list all of the cases listed in Martin's brief that support her position, we simply adopt the following analysis of the issue as presented by the Washington County Court of Appeals in State v. Curry (Jan. 25, 1999), Washington App. No. 97CA46, unreported, to-wit:
We begin our discussion by looking at the definition of a detention facility in R.C.
2921.01 (F) which says,"Detention facility means any place used for the confinement of a person charged with or convicted of any crime or alleged to be or found to be a delinquent child."
* * 3 R.C.
2301.52 sets the minimum requirements for community-based correctional facilities and programs, as follows,"Each proposal for a community-based correctional facility and program or a district community-based correctional facility and program shall provide for or contain at least the following:
(A) The designation of a physical facility that will be used for the confinement of persons sentenced to the facility and program by a court pursuant to section
2929.16 or2929.17 of the Revised Code or persons otherwise committed or admitted pursuant to law to the facility and program. The designated facility shall satisfy all of the following:(1) Be a secure facility that contains lockups and other measures sufficient to ensure the safety of the surrounding community; * * *" emphasis supplied.
Community correctional facilities are treated as any other correctional facility and it is illegal, for example, under R.C.
* * *
When faced with two possible constructions of a statute, one which would result in the statute being unconstitutional and one which would not, the courts should adopt the latter. We believe that the legislature did not intend, since it does not have the power, to overrule a long line of cases which have held that a prisoner must be given credit on his sentence for all times spent in incarceration whether before or after the sentence has been imposed. Id., 2, 3.
This court has also recognized the fact that jail time credit is granted for time in confinement, whether or not the inmate was also receiving treatment. State v. McComb (Jan. 25, 1999), Greene App. No. 99CA8, unreported. Finally, we note, and as admitted by the State in its brief, that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that entry into a Community-Based Correctional Facility constitutes confinement. State v. Snowder (1999),
The assignment of error is sustained.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant Martin jail time credit for the days she spent confined in the Franklin County Community Based Correctional Facility.
_________________________ FREDERICK N. YOUNG, J.
BROGAN, J. and WOLFF, J, concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.