Summary
In Freshour, the supreme court held that the three-for-one provision of R.C. 2945.71(E) does not require that each day of jail time be credited as three for purposes of reducing sentence under R.C. 2967.191.
Summary of this case from State v. WorkmanOpinion
No. 88-841
Submitted July 5, 1988 —
Decided October 5, 1988.
Mandamus — Credit for jail time — Triple count of R.C. 2945.71(E) inapplicable.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 88 CA 9.
Relator-appellant, Paul Larry Freshour, was convicted of attempted aggravated murder in 1983 and is presently incarcerated. On November 2, 1987, he filed a document entitled "Motion for Jail Time Credit" in the Court of Common Pleas of Pickaway County. In the motion, he claimed that his pretrial bond had been illegally revoked by the trial court resulting in his having been incarcerated for forty days prior to his trial. He stated that he received credit for the forty days on his prison sentence, but demanded credit for one hundred twenty days purportedly under R.C. 2945.71(E).
On March 22, 1988, relator sought a writ of mandamus in the court of appeals to compel the court of common pleas to grant the relief requested in the motion. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right.
Paul Larry Freshour, pro se. William H. Harsha, prosecuting attorney, for appellee.
R.C. 2945.71(E) requires that each day an accused is held in jail in lieu of bail pending trial be counted as three days for purposes of computing the time in which the accused must be brought to trial under other provisions of that section. It does not require that each day of jail time be credited as three for purposes of reducing sentence. R.C. 2967.191 requires the Adult Parole Authority to reduce the minimum and maximum sentences of a prisoner by the total number of days that the prisoner was confined before trial, but that statute has no relation to the three-for-one provision of R.C. 2945.71(E). To be entitled to a writ of mandamus relator must demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for and that the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the act requested. State, ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc., v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O. 3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81.
The court of common pleas, although not designated respondent herein, had no duty to grant the relief; the court of appeals had no duty to order it to do so; and the appellant had no clear legal right to the relief sought. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.