[Cite as State v. Gent, 2009-Ohio-5429.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

VAN WERT COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 15-09-08 

 v. 

ROBERT GENT, JR., O P I N I O N 

 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Van Wert County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. CR 09-02-023 

Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Cause Remanded 

Date of Decision: October 13, 2009 

 

APPEARANCES: 

Kelly J. Rauch for Appellant 

Kevin Taylor for Appellee 
Case No. 15-09-08 

-2-

SHAW, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Robert Gent, Jr. (“Gent”) appeals from the 

April 27, 2009 Judgment Entry of the Court of Common Pleas, Van Wert County, 

Ohio, denying Gent’s motion for jail time credit. 

{¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. On March 7, 2008, 

the Van Wert County Grand Jury indicted Gent on two felony counts for 

Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide. Gent remained in jail until his 

arraignment on March 12, 2008 when he was released on an unsecured personal 

surety bond. Shortly thereafter, Gent was arrested by Allen County, Indiana, 

authorities and incarcerated for a parole violation committed in that state. On May 

8, 2008 when Gent failed to appear at a pretrial hearing, because he remained 

incarcerated in Indiana, the Van Wert trial court revoked Gent’s personal surety 

bond and issued a warrant for his arrest. On July 23, 2008, Gent was sentenced 

for the parole violation in Indiana and subsequently sent to an Indiana correctional 

facility to begin serving his sentence. On October 14, 2008, the Indiana prison 

transferred Gent to the Van Wert Correctional Facility to stand trial for the felony 

counts listed on the March 7, 2008 indictment. 

{¶3} On February 6, 2009, the Grand Jury reindicted Gent on the 

Involuntary Manslaughter count to correct a defect in the original indictment and 

dropped the Reckless Homicide count. On February 26, 2009, Gent entered a plea 
Case No. 15-09-08 

-3-

of “No Contest” to a Bill of Information charging Assault, a first degree 

misdemeanor, and specifying the following agreement as a basis for the plea. 

The State will dismiss the involuntary Manslaughter indictment 

and will recommend a sentence of 180 days in jail to run 

consecutively to defendant’s sentence in Indiana. Defendant will 

execute a waiver of extradition and will return to Ohio to serve 

his jail sentence after he is released from prison in Indiana. 

Gent signed the Bill of Information and trial court dismissed the felony charge 

previously indicted.1

 On March 11, 2009, the trial court found Gent guilty of 

Assault and sentenced him 180 days in the Van Wert County jail to be served 

consecutive to the sentence he was serving in Indiana. Two weeks later, Gent was 

returned to the Indiana prison to complete the remainder of his sentence for his 

offense in that state. 

{¶4} On April 8, 2009, Gent filed a Motion for Jail Time Credit under 

R.C. 2949.08(C) for the 163 days he was incarcerated in Van Wert, from October 

14, 2008 to March, 25, 2009. The trial court ultimately denied Gent’s motion 

stating: 

This court finds that the Defendant is not entitled to any jail 

time credit toward his sentence in Van Wert County since he 

was under sentence from the state of Indiana while incarcerated 

in Van Wert County, Ohio. Further the plea agreement and the 

sentence specifically stated that the defendant was to serve his 

 

1

 For ease and clarity of review, it should be noted that the original March 2008 indictment, Case No. CR08-03-014, was later superseded by the February 2009 reindictment, Case No. 09-02-017. The trial court 

eventually consolidated Case No. 09-02-017 to be a part of Case No. 09-02-023, under which the Bill of 

Information was filed. 
Case No. 15-09-08 

-4-

sentence in Van Wert County, Ohio after his prison term in the 

state of Indiana. 

{¶5} Gent now appeals, asserting a single assignment of error. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S 

MOTION FOR JAIL TIME CREDIT. 

{¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Gent argues that the trial court erred 

by denying his motion for jail time credit. Specifically, Gent asserts that he should 

be granted jail time credit for the 163 days he spent incarcerated in Van Wert 

County, from October 14, 2008 to March 25, 2009, while awaiting the final 

disposition of his trial. 

{¶7} Gent primarily relies on R.C. 2949.08(C)(1) which states in pertinent 

part: 

If the person is sentenced to a jail for * * * a misdemeanor, the 

jailer in charge of a jail shall reduce the sentence of a person 

delivered into the jailer’s custody * * * by the total number of 

days the person was confined for any reason arising out of the 

offense for which the person was convicted and sentenced, 

including confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial . . . . 

(Emphasis added). 

This identical statutory language is also found in R.C. 2967.191 and has been 

thoroughly interpreted in cases analyzing its application to apply only to the time 

spent in confinement “arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was 

convicted and sentenced” and does not entitle a prisoner to “credit for time served 
Case No. 15-09-08 

-5-

in another jurisdiction for another offense.” State v. McWilliams (1998), 126 Ohio 

App.3d 398, 400, 710 N.E.2d 729. 

{¶8} Prior to his arrival to the Van Wert County Correctional Facility on 

October 14, 2008, Gent was imprisoned in Indiana where he was serving a 

sentence for a separate offense. Despite being physically detained in Van Wert, 

Gent accrued credit for time served toward his Indiana sentence. Thus, Gent’s 

confinement in Van Wert for this period of time was not arising out of the Van 

Wert offense for which he was later convicted and sentenced. See State v. 

Lawrence (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 44, 46-47, 675 N.E.2d 569 (denying jail time 

credit on identical facts and finding that appellant received credit only on his 

Indiana sentence for all the time spent in custody in Ohio); see also State ex rel. 

Moss v. Subora (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 66, 505 N.E.2d 965 (holding that the 

defendant was not entitled to have the time credited twice against sentences 

imposed for two separate offenses committed in different jurisdictions). 

Therefore, because Gent continued to serve time under his Indiana sentence while 

confined in Van Wert, he is not entitled to double credit for both the Indiana and 

Van Wert sentences. 

{¶9} Furthermore, despite the language of the statute above, to credit the 

time as Gent now requests contradicts the express sentencing authority of the trial 

court. R.C. 2929.41(B)(1) states: 
Case No. 15-09-08 

-6-

A jail term or sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall 

be served consecutively to any other prison term, jail term, or 

sentence of imprisonment when the trial court specifies that it is 

to be served consecutively . . . . 

In the instant case, the trial court specified in the judgment entry for sentencing 

that the jail term for Gent’s misdemeanor conviction would be served consecutive 

to his Indiana prison sentence. 

Defendant is sentenced to 180 days in the Van Wert County Jail 

to be served in the custody of the Van Wert County Sheriff. The 

court further orders that this sentence be served consecutive to 

the sentence the Defendant is now serving in Indiana. After the 

Defendant has completed his sentence in the State of Indiana he 

will return to the State of Ohio to serve his 180 days in the Van 

Wert County Jail. (Judgment Entry, March 13, 2009) (Emphasis 

added). 

The trial court clearly exercised its authority consistent with the sentencing statute 

above. Therefore because the trial court acted within its authority to specify the 

misdemeanor sentence to be served consecutively, Gent is not entitled to jail time 

credit for the time he spent in Van Wert from October 2008 to March 2009. 

{¶10} In addition, Gent entered into a plea agreement which specifically 

states that he would serve his sentence in Van Wert after the completion of his 

prison term in Indiana. In exchange for pursuing a lesser charge, the State 

recommended a sentence of 180 days to be served consecutive to Gent’s Indiana 

prison term. The agreement further stated that Gent “will return to Ohio to serve 

his jail sentence after he is released from prison in Indiana.” Thus, upon entering 
Case No. 15-09-08 

-7-

his plea of no contest, Gent agreed to serve his sentence in Van Wert consecutive 

to his Indiana prison sentence. 

{¶11} We note, however, that apart from the contested 163 days, Gent is 

entitled to five days of jail time credit from his indictment on March 7, 2008 to his 

arraignment and release on March 12, 2008. During this time, Gent was 

incarcerated in Van Wert solely related to the offense committed there. It was 

after his release from Van Wert custody that Gent was arrested and incarcerated 

by the Indiana authorities. 

{¶12} Based on the foregoing, the March 11, 2009 Judgment Entry of the 

Court of Common Pleas, Van Wert County, Ohio, denying Gent’s motion for jail 

time credit is affirmed in part as to the 163 days from October 14, 2008 to March 

25, 2009 and reversed in part as to the five days spent in Van Wert custody 

between March 7, 2008 to March 12, 2008. The cause is remanded to the trial 

court with instructions to grant Gent jail time credit for the five days from March 

7, 2008 to March 12, 2008. 

Judgment Affirmed in Part, 

 Reversed in Part, and 

Cause Remanded 

PRESTON, P.J. and ROGERS, J., concur. 

/jlr