[Cite as State v. Lacy, 2021-Ohio-1776.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NOS. 2020-A-0041

 - vs - : 2020-A-0042 

JONAH RASHUAN ERNEST LACY : 

a.k.a. JONAH LACY, 

: 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

: 

Criminal Appeals from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 2018 

CR 00144 and 2018 CR 00277. 

Judgment: Affirmed. 

Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Prosecutor’s Office, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, 

Ohio 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Jonah Lacy, pro se, A750-690, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, 501 Thompson Road, 

P.O. Box 8000, Conneaut, Ohio 44030 (Defendant-Appellant). 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Jonah Lacy, appeals from the judgments denying his motions for 

jail-time credit. We affirm. 

{¶2} This consolidated appeal stems from two criminal cases against Lacy. In 

the first case, Lacy was indicted on one charge of failure to comply with the order or signal 
 2

of a police officer. In the second case, Lacy was indicted on several drug trafficking 

charges. 

{¶3} Lacy entered guilty pleas to the failure to comply charge and to certain drug 

charges pursuant to plea agreements, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The 

trial court sentenced Lacy to 12 months of incarceration in the first case, with 23 days of 

jail-time credit. In the second case, the trial court sentenced him to three years of 

imprisonment, with no jail-time credit. 

{¶4} On May 8, 2020, Lacy moved for additional jail-time credit of 184 days in 

each case. The trial court overruled Lacy’s motions on the basis that Lacy was serving 

his sentence in an unrelated case during the time period he cited. 

{¶5} Lacy’s sole assigned error states: 

{¶6} “The Trial Court erred when it abused Appellant for violating community 

control was erroneous because the Trial Court incorrectly calculated jail-time credit.” 

(Sic.) 

{¶7} Lacy restates his assigned error after his table of contents as follows: “The 

trial court erred when it abused its discretion when it denied the appellant’s motion for 

additional jail-time credit pursuant to Fugate and Caccamo.” 

{¶8} R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g) provides, in relevant part: 

Subject to division (B)(3) of this section, if the sentencing court 

determines at the sentencing hearing that a prison term is 

necessary or required, the court shall * * * 

(g)(i) Determine, notify the offender of, and include in the 

sentencing entry the total number of days, including the 

sentencing date but excluding conveyance time, that the 

offender has been confined for any reason arising out of the 

offense for which the offender is being sentenced and by 

which the department of rehabilitation and correction must 
 3

reduce the definite prison term imposed on the offender as the 

offender’s stated prison term or, if the offense is an offense 

for which a non-life felony indefinite prison term is imposed 

under division (A)(1)(a) or (2)(a) of section 2929.14 of the 

Revised Code, the minimum and maximum prison terms 

imposed on the offender as part of that non-life felony 

indefinite prison term, under section 2967.191 of the Revised 

Code. The court’s calculation shall not include the number of 

days, if any, that the offender served in the custody of the 

department of rehabilitation and correction arising out of any 

prior offense for which the prisoner was convicted and 

sentenced. 

(ii) In making a determination under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this 

section, the court shall consider the arguments of the parties 

and conduct a hearing if one is requested. 

(iii) The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to 

correct any error not previously raised at sentencing in making 

a determination 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. If the 

court changes the number of days in its determination or 

redetermination, the court shall cause the entry granting that 

change to be delivered to the department of rehabilitation and 

correction without delay. Sections 2931.15 and 2953.21 of 

the Revised Code do not apply to a motion made under this 

section. 

* * * 

(Emphasis added.); see also State v. Corpening, 11th Dist. Ashtabula Nos. 2018-A-0094 

& 2018-A-0095, 2019-Ohio-4833, 137 N.E.3d 116, ¶ 19, quoting State v. Quarterman, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101064, 2014-Ohio-5796, ¶8 (statute as amended in 2012 “‘mark[ed] 

a significant change in the law regarding jail-time credit’”). 

{¶9} Here, the court’s sentencing entries note that Lacy was to receive 23 days 

jail-time credit in the first case and no jail-time credit in the second case “as agreed to by 

counsel.” This language suggests that counsel for the state and for Lacy stipulated to the 
 4

calculated amount of jail-time credit. Regardless, the records do not contain transcripts 

of the sentencing hearings, precluding our review of this issue. 

{¶10} Although R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) “allows a defendant to raise an issue 

regarding his jail-time credit in a post-conviction motion,” he can do so “only when the 

issue was not considered during the sentencing hearing. If an issue was raised and 

considered at the time the trial court rendered its original credit ruling, it cannot be 

asserted again in a motion for additional credit.” State v. Guiterres, 11th Dist. Trumbull 

No. 2015-T-0116, 2016-Ohio-5572, ¶ 15, citing State v. Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 

15AP-209 & 15AP-214, 2015-Ohio-4465, ¶ 9. “Moreover, in moving for an additional 

credit, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating that their argument was not 

previously considered at sentencing.” Guiterres at ¶ 15, citing Smith at ¶ 10. 

{¶11} Because the records do not contain transcripts of the sentencing hearings, 

Lacy cannot demonstrate whether the issue of jail-time credit that he now raises was 

considered at sentencing. “On this basis alone, the substance of [Lacy]’s argument 

cannot be addressed, and his sole assignment is without merit.” Guiterres at ¶ 16. 

{¶12} Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed. 

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J., 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., 

concur.