[Cite as State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio-4175.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 110412 

 v. : 

 

ALAN JONES, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 24, 2021 

 

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-20-654224-A 

 

Appearances: 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Nicole M. Ellis, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and 

Michael V. Wilhelm, Assistant Public Defender, for 

appellant. 

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.: 

 Defendant-appellant Alan Jones appeals from the trial court’s 

judgment sentencing him to a term of 36 months for drug trafficking and related 
offenses. On appeal, he argues the trial court improperly denied him jail-time credit 

for the days he was held in Cuyahoga County Jail awaiting the disposition of the 

instant case. As we explain in the following, the trial court did not improperly deny 

him jail-time credit because Jones was serving time for an unrelated community 

control violation matter during the pretrial detention in this case. We therefore 

affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Procedural Background 

On April 17, 2019, Jones was sentenced to two years of community 

control sanctions in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-18-635610 and CR-18-633623 after he 

pleaded guilty to several drug offenses. A capias was subsequently issued in that 

case.1 

A year and a half later, Jones was arrested for drug trafficking and 

related offenses on October 29, 2020, and confined in the county jail. 

On November 18, 2020, Jones was found in violation of his community 

control in Nos. CR-18-635610 and CR-18-633623 and sentenced to a 10-month 

term. 

Days later, on November 23, 2020, Jones was indicted for the new drug 

offenses in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-20-654224.2 

1 The record of the prior drug cases is not part of the record before us. According to the 

state’s brief on appeal, a capias was issued in that case for his failure to report. 

 

2 On February 24, 2021, the trial court held a hearing regarding Jones’s speedy trial rights. 

The court explained that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the court was unable to conduct 
On March 29, 2021, Jones pleaded guilty to the new drug offenses 

pursuant to a jointly recommended plea agreement by the parties. The trial court 

sentenced him to a term of 36 months and ordered the term to be served 

concurrently with the 10-month term in the community control violation case. 

Regarding jail-time credit, the trial court awarded 21 days of jail-time 

credit for the period between October 29, 2029, when Jones was arrested and 

booked into the county jail, and November 18, 2020, when he was found guilty of 

community control violations and sentenced to a 10-month term. 

The trial court, however, awarded no jail-time credit for the period 

between November 28, 2020, and March 29, 2021, citing this court’s precedents on 

the issue of jail-time credit. On appeal, Jones challenges the trial court’s denial of 

jail-time credit for this period of time, raising the following assignment of error for 

our review: 

The trial court erred in sentencing Mr. Jones when it failed to properly 

credit him with 167 days of jail time credit. 

Standard of Review 

“An error in the computation of jail-time credit is subject to review 

under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).” State v. Hearn, 6th Dist. Erie Nos. E-19-067, E-19-076, 

E-19-077, and E-19-078, 2021-Ohio-86, ¶ 6. See also State v. Williams, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 104155, 2016-Ohio-8049, ¶ 10. “An appellate court may increase, 

jury trials and, furthermore, there would be a delay in the proceedings when the jury trials 

resumed. Jones waived his right to a speedy trial and consented to the matter being 

continued to September 30, 2021. 
decrease, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed trial court sentence if it clearly 

and convincingly is demonstrated that either the record of evidence does not 

support applicable statutory findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” 

Hearn at ¶ 6, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). 

Analysis 

Under the Equal Protection Clause, defendants who are unable to 

afford bail must be credited with the time they are confined while awaiting trial. 

State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440, ¶ 7. This 

principle was codified in R.C. 2967.191. The statute provides as follows: 

The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the 

prison term of a prisoner, as described in division (B) of this section, 

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 * * *. 

(Emphasis added.) 

“Although the principle of crediting time served seems fairly simple on 

its face, in practice, it can be complicated when, inter alia, the defendant is charged 

with multiple crimes committed at different times, or when the defendant is 

incarcerated due to a probation violation.” State v. Chafin, 10th Dist. Franklin 

No. 06AP-1108, 2007-Ohio-1840, ¶ 9. 

Here, after being arrested for the instant drug offenses on October 29, 

2020, Jones was confined in the county jail awaiting the disposition of both the 
community control violation case and the drug charges. After he was sentenced to 

a 10-month term in the community control violation case on November 18, 2020, 

he was confined for two reasons: serving the time in the community control 

violation case and awaiting the disposition of the instant drug case. This appeal 

concerns only the period of time between November 18, 2020, and March 29, 2021. 

Jones argues that, because he was sentenced to a concurrent rather 

than a consecutive term in the community control violation case and the instant 

case, he should be entitled to jail-time credit, Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-

Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440. He argues that, without jail-time credit, he will serve a 

longer period of incarceration than the concurrent 36-month term he received. 

In Fugate, the defendant violated community control when he 

committed a burglary offense during his term of community control sanctions. He 

was held in jail awaiting the disposition of both the community control violation case 

and the burglary case. The trial court, on the same day, sentenced him to 12 months 

in the community violation case and two years in the burglary case, to be served 

concurrently. The trial court awarded pretrial detention credit in the community 

control violation case but not in the burglary case. Id. 

The Supreme Court of Ohio found the trial court to have erred in not 

applying jail-time credit toward each concurrent term. “When a defendant is 

sentenced to concurrent prison terms for multiple charges, jail-time credit pursuant 

to R.C. 2967.191 must be applied toward each concurrent prison term.” Id. at 

syllabus. The court explained the differences between consecutive and concurrent 
sentences in the context of jail-time credit, reasoning that “[i]f an offender is 

sentenced to concurrent terms, applying credit to one term only would, in effect, 

negate the credit for time that the offender has been held.” Id. at ¶ 22. “To deny 

such credit would constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” Id. 

Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440, is 

procedurally different from this case and, therefore, not directly on point for two 

reasons. First, Jones’s community control violation was unrelated to the new drug 

case whereas in Fugate, the burglary offense was the basis of the defendant’s 

community control violation. Second, in Fugate, the jail-time credit concerned the 

period of time defendant was held in jail awaiting the disposition of both cases and 

the defendant began to serve the concurrent term for both cases at the same time. 

Here, in contrast, the jail-time credit concerned the period of time Jones was 

simultaneously serving his term in the community control violation case and 

awaiting disposition of the unrelated drug case. 

Pursuant to the provision in R.C. 2967.191, a defendant is entitled to 

jail-time credit for confinement “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 * * *.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2967.191. Pursuant to the 

statute, when a defendant is held in jail awaiting trial and disposition of a case (for 

any reasons arising out of the case, including confinement in lieu of bail), the court 

is to credit the time the defendant held in jail toward the sentence the defendant 

receives in the case. 
Here, Jones was confined in the Cuyahoga County Jail between 

November 18, 2020, and March 29, 2021, because he was awaiting disposition of 

the drug case and unable to post bond, and would seemingly be entitled to jail-time 

credit under R.C. 2967.191. However, during this period of time, he was also serving 

a sentence on the 10-month term in the unrelated community control violation case. 

When a defendant is being confined in jail due to multiple cases, this 

court has interpreted R.C. 2967.191 to preclude a claim of jail-time credit “for any 

period of incarceration that arose from facts which are separate and apart from 

those on which his current sentence is based.” State v. Maddox, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 99120, 2013-Ohio-3140, ¶ 41, citing State v. DeMarco, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 96605, 2011-Ohio-5187, ¶ 10. There is no jail-time credit pursuant to 

R.C. 2967.191 when a defendant is imprisoned as a result of another unrelated 

offense. Id. There is no jail-time credit for time served on unrelated offenses, even 

if that time served runs concurrently during the pretrial phase of another matter. 

Id. See also State v. Holley, 2017-Ohio-1559, 88 N.E.3d 1290, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.); State 

v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104155, 2016-Ohio-8049, ¶ 15; and State v. 

Smiley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99486, 2013-Ohio-4495, ¶ 13.3 

3 For example, in Smiley, the defendant was in the midst of serving an 18-month prison 

term for a prior case in Medina County when he was transferred to Cuyahoga County Jail 

to face charges for a new case. He spent 28 days in Cuyahoga County Jail before being 

sentenced to 180 days in jail, to run concurrently with the Media County case. The trial 

court did not award jail-time credit, and this court affirmed, citing Demarco and Maddox. 
Relying on the case law precedents from this court, the trial court did 

not award jail-time credit in the instant case for the period between November 18, 

2020, and March 29, 2021. Pursuant to the case law, Jones is not entitled to jailtime credit for this period of pretrial detention, because he was serving a sentence 

in an unrelated case — even though the trial court made the sentence in the instant 

case concurrent to the other case. We are constrained to follow the existing 

precedents unless and until the Supreme Court of Ohio rules otherwise. 

Jones argues it is not fair for the trial court to deny pretrial detention 

credit in the instant case because the delay in the sentencing of this case significantly 

reduced the benefit of the concurrent sentence he received. 

It is undisputed that due to the delay in court proceedings brought on 

by the Covid-19 pandemic, the trial court did not dispose of the instant drug case 

until more than five months after he began serving the 10-month term in the 

community control violation case. However, the trial court was well aware of the 

lengthy pretrial detention time Jones spent in the Cuyahoga County Jail when it 

imposed a concurrent term without any jail-time credit in the instant case. In being 

sentenced to a concurrent term commencing on March 29, 2021, with no jail-time 

credit for the days he was simultaneously serving the 10-month term and awaiting 

the disposition of this case between November 18, 2020, and March 29, 2021, Jones 

essentially received a sentence of time served in the community control violation 

case. It was entirely within the purview of the trial court to fashion a sentence in 

consideration of both the appropriate punishment in the instant drug case and the 
additional time Jones had been held in jail due to the delay in court proceedings. As 

such, Jones’s argument based on fairness is unavailing. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the sole assignment of error is without 

merit and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 

 It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant 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. 

_________________________________ 

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and 

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR