Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Little

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 785
• Docket Number: 2025-P-0038, 2025-P-0039

• Judges: Patton

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (26.4K)

• PDF

Syllabus

CRIMINAL LAW - jail-time credit; abuse of discretion; R.C. 2967.191; consecutive sentences; trial court appropriately calculated jail time credit.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Little, 2026-Ohio-785.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2025-P-0038
2025-P-0039
Plaintiff-Appellee,

• vs - Criminal Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas ANGEL LITTLE,

Defendant-Appellant. Trial Court Nos. 2022 CR 00323 C
2021 CR 00659

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: March 9, 2026
Judgment: Affirmed

Connie J. Lewandoski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina K. Reilly, Portage
County Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For
Plaintiff-Appellee).

John P. Laczko, Portage County Public Defender, and Joseph M. Messuri, Assistant
Public Defender, 209 South Chestnut Street, Suite 400, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For
Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Angel Little (“Little”), appeals from the judgments of

the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motions for additional jail-time

credit.

{¶2} Upon review, we conclude that the trial court’s calculation of jail-time credit

was appropriate and that Little was not entitled to additional credit. Little received

consecutive sentences for an aggregate sentence of 5 to 6½ years. When consecutive

sentences are imposed, the total amount of jail-time credit is applied only once. Little was
entitled to 408 days of jail-time credit, which was awarded by the trial court at the time of

sentencing. As the trial court awarded the appropriate amount of jail-time credit, the trial

court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Little’s motions for additional jail-time

credit.

{¶3} Accordingly, the judgments of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas

are affirmed.

Substantive and Procedural Facts

{¶4} On July 15, 2021, the Portage County Grand Jury returned a two-count

indictment charging Little with aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the second

degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03, and aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the

second degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11, in Case No. 2021 CR 00659. Little was

processed by the jail and released on July 16, 2021. On July 19, 2021, Little pleaded not

guilty at arraignment and the bond initially imposed in Portage County Municipal Court in

Case No. 2021 CRA 1477R was transferred to the instant case and continued.

{¶5} A capias was subsequently issued on November 30, 2021, and it appears

from the record that Little was arrested on that capias on December 2, 2021. A

recognizance of the accused in the amount of $20,000 was filed on December 10, 2021.

Bond was later revoked on January 26, 2022.

{¶6} On March 17, 2022, the Portage County Grand Jury issued a second

indictment in Case No 2022 CR 00323 C charging Little on three counts : aggravated

trafficking in drugs, a felony of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03; aggravated

trafficking in drugs, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03; aggravated

PAGE 2 OF 9

Case Nos. 2025-P-0038, 2025-P-0039
trafficking in drugs, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03.1 On March

29, 2022, Little pleaded not guilty at arraignment and a personal recognizance bond was

set at $20,000. On the Order of Commitment, it stated: “[d]on’t release; being held on

21CR659.”

{¶7} On May 26, 2022, the State of Ohio (“State”) filed a motion for joinder of the

offenses in Case Nos. 2021 CR 00659 and 2022 CR 00323 C. Little opposed the motion.

The trial court granted the motion for joinder on June 10, 2022.

{¶8} On November 1, 2022, Little filed a motion to review bond. The court

declined to modify Little’s bond on December 22, 2022.

{¶9} A jury trial commenced on January 11, 2023. At the outset of the trial, the

State placed the following amendments to the offenses charged, which were also

renumbered for purposes of trial: In Case No. 2022 CR 00323 C, the charges were

aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03

(“Count 1”); aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of

R.C. 2925.03 (“Count 2”); and aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the fourth

degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03 (“Count 3”). In Case No. 2021 CR 00659, the State

proceeded on the aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the second degree, in

violation of R.C. 2925.11 (“Count 4”). The remaining charge in Case No. 2021 CR 00659

was dismissed at trial on the State’s motion.

{¶10} After trial, the jury convicted Little on all four counts.

{¶11} On February 27, 2023, the trial court sentenced Little to an indefinite term

of imprisonment of 3 to 4½ years on Count 4. Little was sentenced to 12 months on

1. On June 3, 2022, an amended indictment was returned charging Little with aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03.

PAGE 3 OF 9

Case Nos. 2025-P-0038, 2025-P-0039
Count 1. This sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on

Count 4. Little was also sentenced to 12 months on each of the remaining counts, Counts

2 and 3. Those sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to each other but

consecutively to the 12-month sentence imposed on Count 1. In sum, Little was

sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 5 to 6½ years.

{¶12} The trial court gave 408 days of jail-time credit for the time spent in the

Portage County Jail during the pendency of the case. The judgment entry stated: “[t]his

credit includes jail time up to the date of sentencing and does not include any subsequent

time awaiting conveyance to the reception facility. That time is to be calculated by

reception facility.”

{¶13} On March 23, 2023, Little filed a direct appeal of his convictions in both

underlying cases. The cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal. Little did not raise

any claim regarding the calculation of jail-time credit in his consolidated appeal. This court

affirmed the judgments of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas on November 13,

1. State v. Little, 2023-Ohio-4098, ¶ 7 (11th Dist.).

{¶14} On May 22, 2025, over two years after Little filed his direct appeals, Little

filed a motion for corrected jail-time credit. In his motion, Little alleged that “[t]he Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections [(“ODRC”)] gave Defendant credit for 0

days on case 2021CR0659. He actually served 429 days in the Portage County Jail.

ODRC gave Defendant credit for 365 days on case 2022CR323C, he actually served 420

days in the Portage County Jail.” The trial court denied the motions on May 22, 2025, and

concluded:

Upon review of the file and inquiry with the Ohio Department
of Corrections' Bureau of Sentence Computation (BOSC), the

PAGE 4 OF 9

Case Nos. 2025-P-0038, 2025-P-0039
Court finds the calculation is correct and motion is hereby
denied. Consecutive sentences bar the jail[-]time credit from
being applied twice when it was served concurrently in the jail.

{¶15} Little timely appeals from these entries.

The Appeal

{¶16} Little raises a single assignment of error for review:

Appellant was denied his right to receive jail[-]time credit for
time spent incarcerated prior to following trial and, as
guaranteed by both the Ohio and United States Constitutions,
and the equal protection clause when the Trial Court denied
giving Appellant credit for the 429 days that he had served in
the Portage County Jail in 2021 CR 0659, and the 420 days
of credit that he had served on case 2022 CR 323C.

{¶17} R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) states in pertinent part:

The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct
any error not previously raised at sentencing in making a
determination [of jail-time credit] under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of
this section. The offender may, at any time after sentencing,
file a motion in the sentencing court to correct any error made
in making a determination under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this
section, and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that
motion.

{¶18} A trial court’s denial of a motion to correct jail-time credit is reviewed under

an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Dorazio, 2023-Ohio-3126, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.)

citing State v. McClafferty, 2020-Ohio-3238, ¶ 32 (11th Dist.); accord State v. Dammons,

2022-Ohio-2387, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.). An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to

exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-

1900, ¶ 62 (2d Dist.), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.2004); State v. Raia, 2014-

Ohio-2707, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.).

{¶19} Little seeks additional jail-time credit for the time he served in the Portage

County Jail. Specifically, Little contends that “under a plain reading of O.R.C. 2967.191,

PAGE 5 OF 9

Case Nos. 2025-P-0038, 2025-P-0039
[Little] should have been given his full jail[-]time credit for the time spent incarcerated of

429 days that he had served in . . . 2021 CR 0659, and the 420 days of credit that he had

served on . . . 2022 CR 323C.”

{¶20} Jail-time credit is applied differently depending on whether the defendant

received a concurrent or consecutive sentences. State v. Chambers, 2023-Ohio-4859, ¶

21 (11th Dist.); State v. Steinmetz, 2020-Ohio-1145, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.).“When a defendant is

sentenced to consecutive terms, the terms of imprisonment are served one after another.

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.” State v. Fugate, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 22.

{¶21} In the instant case, Little was sentenced to consecutive prison terms. Little

was sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment of 3 to 4½ years in Case. No. 2021

CR 00659 and received 12 months on each of the three counts in 2022 CR 00323 C.

While two of the three counts in 2022 CR 00323 C were ordered to be served concurrently

to each other, the trial court ordered that one of the 12-month terms would be served

consecutively to the other 12-month terms and consecutively to the indefinite term

imposed in 2021 CR 00659. Because Little received a consecutive sentence, any jail-

time credit accrued would be applied to only one of the imposed prison terms.

{¶22} Further, the sentences ordered to be served consecutively consist of an

indefinite prison term and a definite prison term. Thus, the definite prison terms imposed

in Case No. 2022 CR 00323 C must be served prior to the indefinite sentence imposed

in Case No. 2021 CR 00659. R.C. 2929.14(C)(10). Therefore, the accrued jail-time credit

would be applied only once, beginning with the terms imposed in Case No. 2022 CR

00323 C.

PAGE 6 OF 9

Case Nos. 2025-P-0038, 2025-P-0039
{¶23} Here, the trial court awarded 408 days of jail-time credit which included “jail

time up to the date of sentencing and does not include any subsequent time awaiting

conveyance to the reception facility.” A review of the record demonstrates that Little was

indicted in Case No. 2021 CR 00659 on July 15, 2021. Little was arrested on July 16,

2021, processed by the jail, and released on bond the same day.

{¶24} A capias was subsequently issued on November 30, 2021. It appears from

the record that Little was arrested on that capias on December 2, 2021. A recognizance

of the accused in the amount of $20,000 was filed on December 10, 2021. Little accrued

nine days of jail-time credit during this time for a total of nine days of credit.

{¶25} Bond was again revoked on January 25, 2022. It appears Little remained in

custody from January 25, 2022, until the date of sentencing on February 27, 2023. Little

accrued 399 days of jail-time credit during this period. Thus, Little was entitled to a total

of 408 days credit, which is what the trial court awarded in its sentencing entries. Because

Little received consecutive sentences, the 408 days of accrued jail-time credit will be

applied once to the aggregate jail term of 5 to 61/2 years. Any days accrued after the date

of sentencing, shall be calculated by the ODRC.

{¶26} R.C. 2967.191(A) provides in relevant part:

The department of rehabilitation and correction shall 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, including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting
trial, confinement for examination to determine the prisoner's
competence to stand trial or sanity, confinement while
awaiting transportation to the place where the prisoner is to
serve the prisoner's prison term. . . .

PAGE 7 OF 9

Case Nos. 2025-P-0038, 2025-P-0039
{¶27} Indeed, “a trial court’s jurisdiction to grant jail-time credit is limited to the

days the offender served leading up to sentencing as well as the day of the sentencing

hearing.” State v. Heidelburg, 2023-Ohio-3408, ¶ 8 (6th Dist.), citing R.C.

2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i). “After the date of sentencing, the ODRC takes over, and the ODRC

is statutorily required to give jail-time credit to an offender for, among other things,

‘confinement while awaiting transportation to the place where the prisoner is to serve the

prisoner's prison term.’” Id., quoting R.C. 2967.191(A). Therefore, any additional jail-time

credit after the date of sentencing and while awaiting conveyance to the prison is

independently calculated by the ODRC. Id.

{¶28} Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s calculation of

jail-time credit was correct and Little was not entitled to any additional jail-time credit. The

trial court properly excluded the conveyance time in its calculation. See Heidelburg at ¶

9. Thus, the court below did not abuse its discretion when it denied Little’s motions to

correct jail-time credit. Accordingly, Little’s single assignment of error is without merit.

Conclusion

{¶29} For the reasons set forth above, the judgments of the Portage County Court

of Common Pleas are affirmed.

MATT LYNCH, P.J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

PAGE 8 OF 9

Case Nos. 2025-P-0038, 2025-P-0039
JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error

is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgments of the Portage

County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON

PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
concurs

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,
concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 9 OF 9

Case Nos. 2025-P-0038, 2025-P-0039