[Cite as State v. Bradley, 2011-Ohio-1228.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Julie A. Edwards, P.J.
: W. Scott Gwin, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : John W. Wise, J.
:
-vs- : Case No. 2010CA00197
:
:
BRANDEN BRADLEY : OPINION
Defendant-Appellant
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from Stark County
Court of Common Pleas Case No.
2005-CR-1085
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 14, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO BRANDEN BRADLEY, pro se
Prosecuting Attorney Inmate No. A531-282
Stark County, Ohio Mansfield Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 788
BY: KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY Mansfield, Ohio 44901
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Section
110 Central Plaza, South – Suite 510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
[Cite as State v. Bradley, 2011-Ohio-1228.]
Edwards, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Branden Bradley, appeals a judgment of the Stark County
Common Pleas Court overruling his motion for jail time credit. Appellee is the State of
Ohio.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On August 5, 2005, appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand
Jury with one count of escape in violation of R.C. 2921.34(A)(1)(C)(2)(b), a felony of the
third degree. The bill of particulars states that on or about December 1, 2004, to July
29, 2005, appellant was ordered into the Community Treatment and Corrections Center
and failed to report, and also states that appellant failed to report to his parole officer on
August 15, 2005.
{¶3} Appellant entered a plea of guilty on October 3, 2005. He was sentenced
to five years incarceration and given 70 days jail time credit. Appellant did not appeal
this entry.
{¶4} Appellant was granted judicial release on October 16, 2006, and placed
on intensive supervision probation (ISP). In February 2007, a motion to revoke his ISP
was filed and appellant was placed on community control. In March of 2007, appellant
was marked an “intensive supervision absconder.” Following a hearing, his ISP was
revoked and he was returned to prison. By judgment entry filed July 10, 2007, appellant
was given jail time credit of 186 days. Appellant did not file an appeal from this entry.
{¶5} On June 23, 2010, appellant filed a motion for jail time credit, asking for 60
days of jail time credit for court-ordered house arrest he alleged he served from October
13, 2006, to December 13, 2006. The record does not reflect that he served time on
Stark County App. Case No. 2010CA00197 3
house arrest. Appellant claimed he should be given jail time credit for 225 days rather
than 186 as set forth in the July 10, 2007 judgment. The court overruled the motion.
Appellant assigns a single error on appeal:
{¶6} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE APPELLANT JAIL
TIME CREDIT FOR DAYS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED ON ELECTRONICALLY
MONITORED HOUSE ARREST IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I SECTION 10 OF THE
OHIO CONSTITUTION.”
{¶7} When faced with the identical issue concerning a motion for jail time credit
for time served on house arrest, this Court has previously held that failure to appeal the
entry in which jail time credit is addressed renders the issue res judicata:
{¶8} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment and 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 claimed lack of due
process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at trial, which
resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on appeal from that judgment. State v.
Szefck, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 95, 1996-Ohio-337, 671 N.E.2d 233; State v. Perry (1967), 10
Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 226 N.E.2d 104. The doctrine of res judicata has also been held to
apply to a jail-time credit motion that alleged an erroneous legal determination on jail
time credit. See, State v. Chafin, Franklin App. No. 06AP-1108, 2007-Ohio-1840; State
v. Lomack, Frank App. No. 04AP-648, 2005-Ohio-2716, at paragraph 12. Issues
regarding jail-time credit are properly addressed on direct appeal. State ex rel. Rankin v.
Stark County App. Case No. 2010CA00197 4
Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 98 Ohio St.3d 476, 479, 2003-Ohio-2061, 786 N.E.2d
1286, State ex rel. Jones v. O'Connor, 84 Ohio St.3d 426, 1999-Ohio-470, 704 N.E.2d
1223; State v. Parsons, Franklin App. No. 03AP-1176, 2005-Ohio-457, at paragraph 8;
State v. Robinson (Oct. 23, 2000), Scioto App. No. 00CA2698, 2000 WL 1617952,
unreported; State v. Flynn (Nov. 7, 1997), Ashtabula App. No. 96-A-0079; State v.
Walker, Muskingum App. No. CT2007-0062, 2007-Ohio-6624.
{¶9} “In the case sub judice, appellant originally entered a plea and was
sentenced in October, 2004. Appellant entered a plea in accordance with the terms of a
negotiated plea agreement and was represented by counsel.
{¶10} “We find that appellant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from
pursuing his Motion for Jail Time Credit. Appellant had an opportunity to appeal the trial
court's February 28, 2008 determination of jail time credit by means of a timely direct
appeal but failed to do so.” State v. Guilford, Stark App. No. 2009CA00107, 2010-Ohio-
647, ¶23-25.
{¶11} In the instant case, appellant failed to file a direct appeal from the July 10,
2007, determination of jail time credit. He is, therefore, barred by the doctrine of res
judicata from pursuing his motion for jail time credit.
Stark County App. Case No. 2010CA00197 5
{¶12} The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶13} The judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Edwards, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Wise, J. concur
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
JUDGES
JAE/r1214
[Cite as State v. Bradley, 2011-Ohio-1228.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
BRANDEN BRADLEY :
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 2010CA00197
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to
appellant.
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES