[Cite as State v. Lutz, 2017-Ohio-4077.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 105595 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

RONALD LUTZ

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-01-403228-A, CR-01-404605-A and CR-01-405399-A 

BEFORE: Boyle, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Blackmon, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 1, 2017 
FOR APPELLANT

Ronald Lutz, pro se 

Inmate No. 409-056 

Hocking Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 59 

Nelsonville, Ohio 45764 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Frank Romeo Zeleznikar 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center, 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY J. BOYLE, J.: 

{¶1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to 

App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1. 

{¶2} Defendant-appellant, Ronald Lutz, appeals from the trial court’s judgment 

that granted him 177 days of jail-time credit. Lutz argues that he should have been 

credited with 212 days of jail-time credit because of the days he spent in the Lakewood 

city jail and at the Northcoast Behavioral Center as part of a court-ordered psychiatric 

evaluation. Plaintiff-appellee, state of Ohio, concedes the error, although it asserts Lutz 

should receive 211 days of jail-time credit. After review, we agree with Lutz. 

{¶3} Accordingly, Lutz’s single assignment of error is sustained and we reverse 

and remand with instructions. 

I. Procedural History and Factual Background 

{¶4} In 2011, Lutz had three interrelated criminal cases pending in the Cuyahoga 

County Common Pleas Court — Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-01-403228-A, 

CR-01-404605-A, and CR-01-405399-A. With respect to Case No. CR-01-403228-A, 

a jury found Lutz guilty of forgery, uttering, attempted theft, extortion, intimidation, and 

retaliation. In Case No. CR-01-404605-A, the jury found Lutz guilty of one count of 

engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, six counts of retaliation, eight counts of 

intimidation, and one count of extortion. And the jury found Lutz guilty of forgery, 

uttering, and intimidation in Case No. CR-01-405399-A. The August 2001 sentencing 

entries state, “Defendant to receive credit for time served.” 
{¶5} On November 16, 2016, Lutz filed a motion for jail-time credit. Lutz 

argued that he should receive 212 days of jail-time credit because of his confinement 

from February 1, 2001 through August 31, 2001, related to Case Nos. CR-01-403228-A, 

CR-01-404605-A, and CR-01-405399-A. Specifically, Lutz presented evidence of his 

arrest and subsequent confinement in the Lakewood city jail from February 1, 2001 to 

February 7, 2001. Lutz also presented evidence of his confinement in the Cuyahoga 

County jail until August 31, 2001, with the exception of his court-ordered psychological 

evaluation with the Northcoast Behavioral Center from April 19, 2001 through May 17, 

2001. 

{¶6} On February 21, 2017, the trial court granted Lutz’s motion for jail-time 

credit, but it only credited Lutz with 177 days of jail-time credit. The trial court declined 

to credit Lutz for his confinement in the Lakewood city jail or the time he spent at the 

Northcoast Behavioral Center for his court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. 

{¶7} It is from this judgment that Lutz appeals. 

II. R.C. 2967.191 and 2948.38(I)

{¶8} Lutz contends that, pursuant to R.C. 2967.191 and R.C. 2948.38(I), the trial 

court erred by failing to credit him with jail-time credit for the time he spent in the 

Lakewood city jail and at the Northcoast Behavioral Center. The state concedes the 

error. We agree. 

{¶9} R.C. 2967.191 provides, in pertinent part: 

The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the stated 
prison term of a prisoner or, if the prisoner is serving a term for which there 

is parole eligibility, the minimum and maximum term or the parole 

eligibility date of the 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, as determined by the sentencing court under division 

(B)(2)(g)(i) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code, and confinement in a 

juvenile facility. 

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

The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any error not 

previously raised at sentencing in making a determination under [R.C. 

2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i)]. The offender may, at any time after sentencing, file 

a motion in the sentencing court to correct an error made in making a 

determination under [R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i)], 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. * * * 

 {¶11} Ohio courts have held that the time that a defendant is under confinement, 

arising out of an action, is required to be credited against a subsequent prison term. See 

State v. Fair, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-99-29, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 248 (Jan. 28, 2000). 

 The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that “confinement” is construed as time in an 
institution or program where one is not free to come and go as they wish. State v. 

Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646, 648, 758 N.E.2d 1127 (2001); see also State v. Canty, 10th 

Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-715, 2015-Ohio-5241 (the time a defendant is held in another 

jail until he is transported and arraigned counts towards jail-time credit). 

{¶12} In addition, R.C. 2948.38(I) provides for jail-time credit for evaluation and 

treatment time: “A defendant convicted of a crime and sentenced to a jail or workhouse 

shall have his sentence reduced by the total number of days he is confined for 

examination to determine his competence to stand trial or treatment under this section and 

sections 2945.37 and 2945.371 of the Revised Code.” In State v. Stevens, 5th Dist. 

Morgan No. CA00-02, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4613 (Sept. 27, 2000), the Fifth District 

reversed and remanded a case because the trial court failed to credit the defendant for the 

days he spent in a mental health facility for a competency evaluation. 

{¶13} In this case, the evidence proves that, as a result of Case Nos. 

CR-01-403228-A, CR-01-404605-A, and CR-01-405399-A, Lutz spent from February 1, 

2001 to August 31, 2001 — a total of 212 days — in either the Lakewood city jail, the 

Cuyahoga County jail, or the Northcoast Behavioral Center. Although the state 

concedes the error raised by Lutz, it claims that Lutz should receive only 211 days of 

jail-time credit. The number of days from February 1, 2001 to August 31, 2001, 

however, totals 212 days. Accordingly, the trial court should have credited Lutz with a 

total jail-time credit of 212 days. 

{¶14} Consequently, the trial court erred when it granted Lutz’s motion for 
jail-time credit and only credited him with 177 days. Lutz’s single assignment of error is 

sustained. 

{¶15} Judgment reversed and remanded. Upon remand, we instruct the trial court 

to properly credit Lutz with a total of 212 days of jail-time credit in Case Nos. 

CR-01-403228-A, CR-01-404605-A, and CR-01-405399-A.

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 common 

pleas court 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. 

 

 

MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR