State v. Turner

[Cite as State v. Turner, 2026-Ohio-1528.]




             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  BELMONT COUNTY

                                             STATE OF OHIO,

                                             Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                      v.

                                        KAWAME TURNER,

                                        Defendant-Appellant.


                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 25 BE 0054


                                   Criminal Appeal from the
                        Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio
                                    Case No. 19 CR 209

                                           BEFORE:
                   Katelyn Dickey, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.


                                                 JUDGMENT:
                                                   Affirmed.


 Atty. J. Kevin Flanagan, Belmont County Prosecutor, and Atty. Jacob A. Manning,
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee and

 Kawame Turner, Defendant-Appellant.


                                             Dated: April 28, 2026
                                                                                       –2–


 DICKEY, J.

       {¶1}   Pro se Appellant, Kawame Turner, appeals from the October 3, 2025
judgment of the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for additional
jail-time credit. Appellant pled guilty to tampering with evidence and received a 36-month
jointly recommended sentence, with 430 days of jail-time credit, in Case No. 19 CR 209.
On appeal, Appellant believes he should have received more jail-time credit than what he
agreed to. Appellant contends he is entitled to credit in two pending cases, Case Nos.
19 CR 209 and 23 CR 258, at the same time. For the reasons stated, we affirm.

                         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶2}   On January 9, 2020, in Case No. 19 CR 209, Appellant was indicted by the
Belmont County Grand Jury on three counts: count one, aggravated trafficking in drugs,
a felony of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)(C)(1)(d); count two,
tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)(B);
and count three, aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth degree in violation
of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a). The charges stem from Appellant’s arrest on unrelated drug
charges.   Appellant had been arrested by the Bellaire Police Department and was
transported to the Belmont County Jail. An officer was notified that when Appellant
arrived at the jail, Appellant admitted to having concealed a baggie of methamphetamine
in his rectum. Appellant agreed to voluntarily defecate the drugs out of his body and the
baggie was retrieved by law enforcement. The drugs subsequently tested positive for
methamphetamine. Appellant retained counsel, pled not guilty at his arraignment, and
waived his right to a speedy trial.
       {¶3}    A jury trial was set for March 31, 2021. Appellant advised the trial court of
his desire to withdraw his former plea of not guilty and enter a plea of no contest to the
three charges as contained in the indictment. Appellant and Appellee, the State of Ohio,
appeared before the court for a plea hearing on a negotiated plea. Pursuant to the
negotiated plea, Appellant agreed to plead no contest and the parties agreed to a
sentence of five years on count one, with the sentences in counts two and three to run
concurrent with count one. Appellant pled no contest at that hearing. After finding that



Case No. 25 BE 0054
                                                                                        –3–


Appellant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his rights, the court accepted his
no contest plea, ordered a PSI, and deferred sentencing.
       {¶4}   Appellant’s sentencing hearing was set for May 3, 2021.             However,
Appellant failed to appear and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Despite not appearing
at the sentencing hearing, Appellant filed a combined pro se “Motion for Ineffective
Counsel” and a “Motion to Withdraw Plea” which was received for filing on April 29, 2021.
Appellant was arrested. The trial court set the “Motion to Withdraw Plea” for a hearing on
June 4, 2021.      Appellant retained new counsel and the hearing was reset for
June 18, 2021.
       {¶5}   On June 11, 2021, Appellant’s counsel filed a memorandum in support of
Appellant’s “Motion to Withdraw Plea.” At the June 18, 2021 hearing, the trial court
overruled the motion. Sentencing was set for June 22, 2021. Following a requested
continuance, the sentencing hearing was reset for July 9, 2021. Appellant was released
on a $20,000 bond. Appellant failed to appear at the July 9, 2021 sentencing hearing and
a warrant was issued for his arrest. Appellant was not apprehended until May 2023.
Sentencing was reset for July 3, 2023.
       {¶6}   On June 28, 2023, Appellant’s counsel filed “Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration of Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea and Motion to Continue
Sentencing.” The motion argued that Appellant entered the no contest plea without
discussing it with his prior counsel. The trial court held a hearing on August 28, 2023.
       {¶7}   On September 21, 2023, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion to
withdraw. Specifically, the court found that Appellant’s attorney explained to him the
State’s offer for resolution and Appellant understood the agreed recommendation of the
parties. However, the court found that the plea hearing and colloquy failed to correctly
inform Appellant of the maximum penalties. The court also noted that the plea petition
incorrectly indicated that Appellant would be pleading guilty instead of no contest and it
also noted that Reagan Tokes required there to be notice of a maximum sentence of
8-12 years.    The State appealed that judgment to this court and we affirmed on
September 16, 2024. State v. Turner, 2024-Ohio-4845 (7th Dist.).
       {¶8}   While that appeal was pending, on October 10, 2023, in Case No. 23 CR
258, Appellant was indicted by the Belmont County Grand Jury on one count of failure to



Case No. 25 BE 0054
                                                                                          –4–


appear, a felony of the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 2937.99(A)(B), due to his failure
to appear at the July 9, 2021 sentencing hearing in Case No. 19 CR 209.
       {¶9}   On December 11, 2023, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment.
Appellant asserted the recognizance bond in Case No. 19 CR 209 was invalid as a matter
of law and he should have been present at the hearing at which it was set. Following a
hearing, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss on February 20, 2024.
       {¶10} On March 5, 2024, Appellant appealed that judgment to this court and we
sua sponte dismissed the appeal on March 14, 2024. The case proceeded to a jury trial
on April 18, 2024 and Appellant was found guilty on the sole count of failure to appear.
       {¶11} On April 23, 2024, Appellant filed a post-judgment motion for acquittal
alleging the same two issues previously raised regarding the recognizance bond in Case
No. 19 CR 209. On May 3, 2024, the trial court denied the motion. On May 28, 2024,
Appellant was sentenced to 17 months in prison with 224 days of jail-time credit.
Appellant appealed that judgment to this court and we affirmed on December 11, 2024.
State v. Turner, 2024-Ohio-5800 (7th Dist.).
       {¶12} Following our decision, the parties returned to the trial court in Case No. 19
CR 209. After addressing a motion to dismiss concerning the availability of evidence from
the original arrest, the court set the matter for trial on August 19, 2025. However, on
August 14, 2025, the parties appeared for a plea hearing. The parties reached an
agreement for a plea and a jointly recommended sentence. The agreement included a
plea of guilty to count two, tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree in violation
of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)(B).      The agreement also included a dismissal of count one,
aggravated trafficking in drugs, and count three, aggravated possession of drugs. On
August 18, 2025, the court accepted Appellant’s guilty plea and imposed the 36-month
jointly recommended sentence with 430 days of jail-time credit.
       {¶13} On September 22, 2025, Appellant filed a pro se motion for additional jail-
time credit. On October 3, 2025, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion.
       {¶14} Appellant filed a timely appeal from the trial court’s October 3, 2025
judgment and raises two assignments of error.




Case No. 25 BE 0054
                                                                                          –5–


                             ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

       TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF THE
       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BY DENYING ADDITIONAL JAIL-TIME
       CREDIT.

                             ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS CALCULATION OF THE
       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JAIL-TIME CREDIT.

       {¶15} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
denying him additional jail-time credit. Appellant believes he is “entitled to Jail-Time credit
in both Belmont County cases” at the same time and “seeks 224 additional days of Jail-
Time credit” from Case No. 23 CR 258. (12/22/2025 Appellant’s Brief, p. 7, 8-9). In his
second assignment of error, Appellant contends the court erred in its calculation of jail-
time credit. Because Appellant’s assignments are interrelated, as they both take issue
with jail-time credit, we will consider them together for ease of discussion.

              A prison term shall be reduced by the total number of days the
       prisoner was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the
       offender was sentenced, including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting
       trial. R.C. 2967.191. Although the ODRC has administrative record-keeping
       duties in such regard, it is the trial judge’s duty to determine the amount of
       credit to which a prisoner is entitled. State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult
       Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d 476, 2003-Ohio-2061, 786 N.E.2d 1286, ¶ 7-8
       (the trial court must make a factual determination as to the amount of credit
       which a defendant is entitled to by law); R.C. 2967.191. This jail time credit
       information must be included in a defendant’s sentencing entry. See R.C.
       2949.12; Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(B).

              Where the sentencing court made a mistake in jail time credit, the
       defendant can file a direct appeal from his conviction. Rankin, 98 Ohio St.3d
       476 at ¶ 10. Legal arguments concerning jail time credit are waived if they


Case No. 25 BE 0054
                                                                                            –6–


      are not raised in the direct appeal. Mason, 7th Dist. No. 10CO20 at ¶ 13.
      Although a defendant may challenge mathematical or clerical errors in
      calculating jail-time credit by filing a motion for correction with the trial court
      and by appealing the resulting judgment, the proper vehicle for challenging
      legal errors in the imposition of jail time credit is via a direct appeal from the
      sentencing entry. Id. (where the defendant argued he should have been
      credited for certain time in the local jail while he had a holder from another
      county), citing State v. Parsons, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-1176, 2005-Ohio-457,
      at ¶ 7-8 (where the defendant argued he was entitled to credit for time spent
      on community control). See also Crim.R. 36.

             This can be attributed to the doctrine of res judicata, which provides
      that a final judgment bars a convicted defendant from raising issues that
      could have been raised by the defendant on direct appeal. See State v.
      Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 95, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996), citing State v. Perry,
      10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). As such, if there is no
      appeal from a legal error in the sentencing entry’s provision of jail time
      credit, then the issue becomes res judicata if it could have been raised on
      direct appeal. This is the view across the state. See e.g., State v. Britton,
      3d Dist. Nos. 4–12–13, 4–12–14, 4–12–15, 2013-Ohio-1008, ¶ 14 (where
      defendant argued that he was denied credit while in a certain program);
      State v. Johnson, 5th Dist. Nos. 2011–CA–0113, 2011–CA–0114, 2012-
      Ohio-5164, ¶ 12; Mason, 7th Dist. No. 10CO20 at ¶ 13; State v. Chafin, 10th
      Dist. No. 06AP–1108, 2007-Ohio-1840, ¶ 12.

             A mathematical error, subject to a postjudgment motion, is
      something clerical. Johnson, 5th Dist. Nos. 2011–CA–0113, 2011–CA–
      0114 at ¶ 14; State v. McClain, 6th Dist. No. L–07–1164, 2008-Ohio-481, ¶
      14. Whereas, a legal error that must be directly appealed is a substantive
      issue. Johnson, 5th Dist. Nos. 2011–CA–0113, 2011–CA–0114 at ¶ 14
      (argument that court failed to provide credit on a count in the 2001 case and
      in the 2004 case for time served on another count in the 2001 case is a


Case No. 25 BE 0054
                                                                                          –7–


       substantive argument); McClain, 6th Dist. No. L–07–1164 at ¶ 14 (a claim
       that jail time credit was denied because days were not properly classified
       as arising under the instant offense is a substantive claim).

              In other words, where a court is alleged to have erroneously omitted
       a “category of time,” a legal error is raised and thus barred by res judicata
       where it was not raised on direct appeal when it could have been. [footnote
       omitted] See, e.g., Britton, 3d Dist. Nos. 4–12–13, 4–12–14, 4–12–15 at ¶
       15; Chafin, 10th Dist. No. 06AP–1108 at ¶ 12; Parsons, 10th Dist. No.
       03AP–1176, at ¶ 8; State v. Robinson, 4th Dist. No. 00CA2698 (Oct. 23,
       2000) (where the defendant argues he was “wrongfully denied” credit, he
       must appeal the sentencing entry rather than filing postjudgment motions).

State v. Perry, 2013-Ohio-4370, ¶ 10-14 (7th Dist.).

       {¶16} Appellant believes he should have received more jail-time credit than what
he agreed to. Appellant contends he is entitled to jail-time credit in two pending cases at
the same time. Appellant’s two-case assertion deals with a “category of time” in which
he was allegedly not credited. See Perry at ¶ 15. Appellant’s claim involves a substantive
argument rather than a mathematical or clerical error. Thus, Appellant’s issue should
have been raised on direct appeal from the sentencing entry, not in a post-judgment
motion for jail-time credit. Id. at ¶ 16. Because it was not, Appellant’s argument is now
barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Id.

              A case must end at some point; a defendant does not have unlimited
       time to seek relief from legal errors merely because he is incarcerated or
       indigent. Even assuming merely for the sake of argument that an error
       existed, . . . it was clear and ascertainable during the time for appealing from
       the sentencing entry . . .

Id.

       {¶17} Nonetheless, the record reveals Appellant pled guilty in Case No. 19 CR
209 pursuant to a jointly recommended sentence and agreed to the calculation of jail-time



Case No. 25 BE 0054
                                                                                      –8–


credit that he is now challenging. Even assuming Appellant attempted to appeal the
sentencing entry directly, he would have been prevented from doing so since he pled
guilty and jointly recommended a sentence that was accepted by the trial court. See R.C.
2953.08(D)(1) (“A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this
section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the
defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.”)
       {¶18} Based on the facts presented and the record before us, the trial court did
not err in denying Appellant’s pro se motion for additional jail-time credit in Case No. 19
CR 209. Appellant has waived his ability to appeal any substantive issue regarding jail-
time credit and, in any event, he agreed to the time for which he was given credit.
       {¶19} Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are without merit.

                                      CONCLUSION

       {¶20} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignments of error are not well-
taken. The October 3, 2025 judgment of the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas
denying Appellant’s pro se motion for additional jail-time credit is affirmed.




Waite, P.J., concurs.

Robb, J., concurs.




Case No. 25 BE 0054
[Cite as State v. Turner, 2026-Ohio-1528.]




         For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error
 are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of
 the Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be waived.
         A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
 in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that
 a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into
 execution.




                                        NOTICE TO COUNSEL

         This document constitutes a final judgment entry.