You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State v. Durant

Citation: 2016 Ohio 8173Docket: 15 BE 0010

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; December 14, 2016; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case between the State of Ohio and Charles Daniel Durant, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District reviewed an appeal against a sentencing decision by the Belmont County Common Pleas Court. Durant was sentenced to twelve months of incarceration on two counts of fifth-degree drug trafficking, which he contested, arguing for community control as per R.C. 2929.13(B)(1). He also raised an issue regarding an uncredited 13 days of jail time. Initially arraigned on April 1, 2013, and pleading guilty, Durant entered a drug court program but faced sanctions due to noncompliance, leading to a motion for termination from the program. On February 3, 2015, he was sentenced to 24 months, with his driver's license suspended for three years. The court justified the prison sentence by considering the seriousness of the offense and recidivism factors, despite Durant's claims that community control was mandated. The appellate court affirmed the sentencing decision but modified it to include the additional jail-time credit. The ruling underscored the court's discretion to impose a more severe sentence due to Durant's program violations, aligning with statutory provisions. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, except for the correction in jail-time credit, which was adjusted to reflect the additional 13 days served.

Legal Issues Addressed

Community Control under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)

Application: The court's discretion to impose incarceration instead of community control was upheld due to the appellant's noncompliance with the drug court program.

Reasoning: Durant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a jail sentence instead of a community control sanction, asserting that the law required a lesser penalty due to his lack of prior felony convictions and compliance with specific conditions.

Discretion to Impose Prison Sentence under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)

Application: The court retained discretion to impose a prison sentence due to appellant's self-termination from the drug court program and violation of its terms.

Reasoning: The court retained discretion to impose a prison sentence based on the seriousness and recidivism factors outlined in R.C. 2929.12, emphasizing that Durant had been warned about the consequences of self-terminating from the drug court program.

Jail-Time Credit Calculation under R.C. 2967.191

Application: The appellate court modified the sentence to include 13 additional days of jail-time credit, acknowledging the miscalculation by the trial court.

Reasoning: Appellant claims he was not credited with 13 days served prior to sentencing, arguing for a total of 213 days of jail-time credit instead of the 200 days awarded. The state agrees with Appellant's position.