[Cite as State v. Thomas, 2023-Ohio-1668.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :

No. 111703

v. :

JEFFERY THOMAS, :

Defendant-Appellee. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 18, 2023 

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-21-658493-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Gregory J. Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellant.

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and 

John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.:

Plaintiff-appellant the state of Ohio appeals the sentence imposed on 

defendant-appellee Jeffery Thomas for attempted felonious assault with a one-year 
firearm specification. The state argues that the trial court improperly applied jailtime credit to the mandatory prison term imposed on the firearm specification.

For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s judgment, in 

part, and remand the case for a limited resentencing, with instructions that the trial 

court vacate the portion of Thomas’ sentence that applies jail-time credit to the 

mandatory prison term imposed on the firearm specification and issue a new 

sentencing journal entry that does not include a request to apply jail-time credit to 

the mandatory prison term imposed on the firearm specification. 

Factual Background and Procedural History

On April 15, 2021, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Jeffery

Thomas on three counts: one count of felonious assault with one-, three- and fiveyear firearm specifications and notice-of-prior-conviction, repeat-violent-offender 

and forfeiture-of-weapon specifications (Count 1); one count of having a weapon 

while under disability with a forfeiture-of-weapon specification (Count 2) and one 

count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle with a forfeiture-ofweapon specification (Count 3). 

The parties reached a plea agreement. Thomas pled guilty to an 

amended count of attempted felonious assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.11(A)(2)/2923.02, a third-degree felony, with a one-year firearm specification 

and a forfeiture-of-weapon specification (amended Count 1) and one count of having 

a weapon while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a third-degree 
felony, with a forfeiture-of-weapon specification (Count 2). In exchange for 

Thomas’ guilty pleas, the remaining count was nolled. 

On June 6, 2022, the trial court sentenced Thomas to an aggregate 

prison term of four years. On Count 1, as amended, the trial court sentenced Thomas 

to one year on the firearm specification to be served prior to, and consecutive with

36 months on the underlying offense. On Count 2, the trial court sentenced Thomas 

to 24 months, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on Count 1.

1

 The 

trial court credited Thomas with 430 days of jail-time credit.2 

At the sentencing hearing, Thomas’ counsel made the following 

request:

I’m going to ask you a couple of things and I know this has been done 

before because of COVID. He’s got [a] firearm specification in 658493, 

and I believe these cases would have been resolved much sooner had 

we not been in the COVID situation. And I’d ask the Court to consider 

crediting the time that he served in the county jail, that year, towards 

that time. I think that’s fair and proper under the COVID 

circumstances, Judge. 

The trial court addressed the request as follows during the sentencing 

hearing:

Due to the COVID pandemic and its effect on the criminal justice 

system, I will put in the journal entry, and I hope that the ODRC 

complies with this order, Mr. Thomas will receive credit that he spent 

in the county jail to be applied towards the mandatory one-year firearm 

specification.

1 The sentences were also ordered to be served concurrently with sentences 

imposed in two other cases, CR-20-653007-A and CR-21-658838-A. 

2 The parties do not dispute the amount of jail-time credit credited by the trial 

court.
The state objected to the allocation of jail-time credit to the firearm 

specification. Consistent with its statement at the sentencing hearing, in its June 7, 

2022 sentencing journal entry, the trial court included a request that jail-time credit 

be applied to the one-year firearm specification as follows: “Due to COVID

pandemic, court is requesting jail time credit to be applied to 1 year firearm spec.”

The state sought leave to appeal pursuant to App.R. 5(C) and R.C. 

2945.67. On August 27, 2022, this court granted the state’s motion for leave to 

appeal. The state raises the following sole assignment of error for review:

The trial court erred when it requested that defendant’s jail-time credit 

be applied to the portion of the sentence imposed for a firearm 

specification.

Law and Analysis

The state argues that, pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B) and the Ohio 

Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Moore, 154 Ohio St.3d 94, 2018-Ohio-3227, 111 

N.E.3d 1146, jail-time credit cannot be applied toward the portion of a sentence 

imposed for a firearm specification. The state asks us to reverse the trial court’s 

decision and remand the matter “for a limited resentencing hearing to vacate the 

portion of Thomas’ sentence applying jail-time credit to the mandatory prison 

sentence imposed for the firearm specification.” 

Thomas responds that the state’s appeal should be dismissed because 

(1) the issue is not ripe for review unless and until the trial court grants Thomas

judicial release before Thomas serves “an actual one year in prison,” i.e., the length 

of the mandatory term, and (2) we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the 
trial court did not “decide” to apply jail-time credit to the sentence imposed for the 

firearm specification but only “request[ed]” that the Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction do so.

This court recently addressed each of these same issues in full in State 

v. Mims, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111780, 2023-Ohio-1044. For the reasons set forth 

in Mims, we find that the issue is ripe for review, that we have jurisdiction to hear 

this appeal and that the trial court’s sentence is contrary to law to the extent it 

applies jail-time credit to the mandatory prison term imposed for the firearm 

specification. Id. at ¶ 12-39.

Because the trial court’s application of jail-time credit is contrary to 

law, we sustain the state’s assignment of error.

We reverse the trial court’s judgment, in part, and remand this matter 

for a limited resentencing. On remand, the trial court is directed to vacate the 

portion of Thomas’ sentence that applies jail-time credit to the mandatory prison 

term imposed on the firearm specification and issue a new sentencing journal entry 

that does not include a request to apply jail-time credit to the mandatory prison term 

imposed on the firearm specification but instead applies that credit to the 

underlying felony sentence. See id. at ¶ 41. 

Judgment reversed in part and remanded.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee the costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________ 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., and

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR