[Cite as State ex rel. Moody v. Dir., Ohio Bur. of 

Sentence Computation, 2024-Ohio-1891.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Rickey Moody, :

Relator, :

v. : No. 23AP-303

Director, Ohio Bureau of : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Sentence Computation, 

:

Respondent.

:

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on May 16, 2024

On brief: Rickey Moody, pro se.

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Marcy 

Vonderwell, for respondent.

IN MANDAMUS

ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

BOGGS, J.

{¶ 1} Relator, Rickey Moody, has filed this original action seeking a writ of 

mandamus, ordering respondent, Director, Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation, to 

award him an additional 165 days of jail-time credit, consistent with the sentences imposed 

by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common 

Pleas. 

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, 

the court referred this matter to a magistrate. On October 24, 2023, the magistrate issued 

a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. 

{¶ 3} As the magistrate notes, respondent has filed a motion to dismiss this action,

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which the magistrate converted into a motion for summary 

judgment, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B) and Civ.R. 56. In support of its motion, respondent 
No. 23AP-303 2

submitted an affidavit from Debbie Warren, a correction records sentence computation 

auditor for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), to which was 

attached a document prepared by Warren that detailed the calculation of relator’s prison 

sentence and copies of relator’s sentencing entries. Relator opposed respondent’s motion 

but did not submit evidentiary materials in opposition to respondent’s motion. Upon 

review of the parties’ submissions, the magistrate recommends that this court grant 

respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny relator’s request for a writ of 

mandamus. 

{¶ 4} Relator has filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. In particular, relator 

objects to the magistrate’s reliance on State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr, 130 Ohio St.3d 400, 

2011-Ohio-5934, and Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(E) to deny relator’s request for a writ of 

mandamus. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d), we must now independently review the 

magistrate’s decision to ascertain whether “the magistrate has properly determined the 

factual issues and appropriately applied the law.” As explained below, we conclude that he 

has. 

{¶ 5} Initially, we note that relator has not objected to the magistrate’s findings of 

fact, and finding no error in those findings, we adopt them as our own. We likewise adopt,

without restating here, the magistrate’s unobjected to conclusions of law setting out the 

legal standards regarding summary judgment and relief in mandamus. 

{¶ 6} Relator is an inmate incarcerated at the Grafton Correctional Institution.

Respondent is a division of ODRC and is responsible for computing release dates for Ohio 

inmates.

{¶ 7} On December 3, 2019, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas sentenced 

relator in three cases. In Summit C.P. case No. CR-2019-05-1623, the court sentenced 

relator to three years in prison and granted 23 days of jail-time credit. In Summit C.P. case 

No. CR-2018-11-3874-B, the court sentenced relator to one year in prison and granted 130

days of jail-time credit. In Summit C.P. case No. CR-2018-09-3184, the court sentenced 

relator to three years in prison and granted 138 days of jail-time credit. The court ordered

the three sentences to run concurrently. 

{¶ 8} Relator was admitted to ODRC custody to begin serving his sentences from 

Summit County on December 31, 2019. According to Warren, ODRC granted relator an 

additional 23 days of credit in each of his Summit County sentences, presumably 

representing the time relator remained in jail between sentencing and his admission to 
No. 23AP-303 3

ODRC custody. (June 5, 2023 Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A-1.) Warren stated that relator’s

controlling prison term was from Summit C.P. case No. CR-2019-05-1623 and that his

release date was certified as November 9, 2022. Id.

{¶ 9} On March 28, 2020, the Lake County Court of Common Pleas sentenced 

relator to a five-year mandatory term of imprisonment, with 46 days of jail-time credit, and 

ordered that relator serve that prison term concurrently with his existing sentences from

Summit County. In State v. Moody, Lake C.P. case No. 18CR-000866, ODRC thereafter

certified relator’s release date as January 30, 2025. After the Lake County court

subsequently credited relator with 34 additional days of jail-time credit—23 days on 

September 1, 2020 and 11 days on August 18, 2022—ODRC recalculated and recertified 

relator’s release date as December 27, 2024. 

{¶ 10} Relator does not contend that the Summit County or Lake County courts

miscalculated his jail-time credit; he argues that respondent failed to properly apply the 

correctly calculated and court ordered days of credit to his sentence. Specifically, he claims 

that respondent has failed to reduce his “total sentence by the 165 days [of jail-time credit] 

properly calculated by Summit County.” (May 17, 2023 Compl. at 3.) 

{¶ 11} The magistrate correctly explains that, although the practice of awarding jailtime credit has its roots in the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States 

Constitutions, the right to jail-time credit has now been codified in state statute. See State 

v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 17. 

{¶ 12} R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) requires a court that is sentencing a felony offender 

to a definite prison term to “[d]etermine, 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 reduce the definite prison term imposed on the offender 

as the offender’s stated prison term.” Again, relator does not challenge either sentencing 

court’s calculation of jail-time credit. 

{¶ 13} R.C. 2967.191(A) states, “[t]he department of rehabilitation and correction 

shall reduce the prison term of a 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.” Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04 provides additional guidance regarding 

ODRC’s application of jail-time credit. Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(A) requires ODRC to 
No. 23AP-303 4

reduce a prisoner’s stated prison term “by the total number of days specified by the 

sentencing court in the sentencing entry,” as well as by “the number of days the offender 

was confined as a result of the offense, between the date of the sentencing entry and the 

date committed to the department.”1

{¶ 14} For purposes of applying jail-time credit to a prison term, concurrent and 

consecutive sentences are treated differently. In Fugate, the Supreme Court of Ohio 

explained that Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(F) (now Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(E)) states, “

‘[i]f an offender is serving two or more sentences, stated prison terms or combination 

thereof concurrently, the adult parole authority shall independently reduce each sentence 

or stated prison term for the number of days confined for that offense. Release of the 

offender shall be based upon the longest definite, minimum and/or maximum sentence or 

stated prison term after reduction for jail time credit.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 9, quoting 

former Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(F). On the other hand, when an offender is serving 

multiple sentences consecutively, the Administrative Code instructs that jail-time credit be 

applied only once to the total prison term. Id. at ¶ 10, citing former Ohio Adm.Code 5120-

2-04(G)(now Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(F)). The court explained:

These two directives make clear that although concurrent and 

consecutive terms are to be treated differently when jail-time 

credit is applied, the overall objective is the same: to comply 

with the requirements of equal protection by reducing the total 

time that offenders spend in prison after sentencing by an 

amount equal to the time that they were previously held.

Id. at ¶ 11. 

{¶ 15} Upon review of the relevant statutes and Administrative Code provisions, the 

Supreme Court held in Fugate that, “when concurrent prison terms are imposed, courts do 

not have the discretion to select only one term from those that are run concurrently against 

which to apply jail-time credit,” because “[i]f courts were permitted to apply jail-time credit 

to only one of the concurrent terms, the practical result would be * * * to deny credit for 

time that an offender was confined while being held on pending charges.” Id. at ¶ 12. Thus, 

“when a defendant is sentenced to concurrent prison terms for multiple charges, jail-time 

1 As the magistrate notes, Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04 was substantially modified effective May 27, 2021. The 

prior version of Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(A), quoted in full in footnote 4 in the magistrate’s decision, 

provided for reduction of an offender’s “stated prison term * * * by the total number of days that the offender 

was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which he was convicted and sentenced, including 

confinement in lieu of bail while awaiting trial * * * and confinement while awaiting transportation to the place 

where he is to serve his sentence.” 
No. 23AP-303 5

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

at ¶ 22.

{¶ 16} The Supreme Court revisited the issue of application of jail-time credit in

Rankin, 2011-Ohio-5934. There, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth District Court of 

Appeals’ judgment denying Rankin’s request for a writ of mandamus to order the director 

of ODRC to recalculate his prison term by crediting each of his concurrent prison terms 

with 734 days of jail-time credit. According to the Fourth District, Rankin had been 

sentenced to prison in Adams, Scioto, Pike, and Highland Counties, all arising from his 

involvement in a burglary spree. Rankin received 82 days of jail-time credit when he was 

sentenced in Adams County in 2007, 8 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in 

Scioto County in 2007, 18 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Pike County in 

2008, and 52 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Highland County in 2009. 

Rankin agreed that the controlling sentence for determining his release date was his 13-

year sentence from Highland County.

{¶ 17} Rankin argued that he should receive additional credit for 644 days he had 

already served on his other sentences, plus the 90 days of jail-time credit to which the 

Adams and Scioto County courts had determined he was entitled. The Fourth District 

disagreed and held that Rankin was not entitled to credit on his Highland County sentence 

for time served in relation to the other cases, prior to his sentencing in Highland County. 

{¶ 18} In affirming the Fourth District’s judgment, the Supreme Court held that the 

director of ODRC “had no duty to reduce Rankin’s Highland County 13-year sentence by 

the number of days that Rankin was confined for other crimes before he received the 13-

year sentence.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 2. The Supreme Court distinguished Fugate,

because Fugate had been “held on each of the charges before his sentencing, and he was 

thus entitled to a reduction of each concurrent prison term.” Id. It concluded, “[t]he fact 

that the Highland County court ordered that Rankin’s 13-year sentence be served 

concurrently with his prior sentences does not affect our determination that Rankin is not 

entitled to a reduction of his 13-year sentence.” Id. 

{¶ 19} In his first objection, realtor challenges the magistrate’s reliance on Rankin

and cites this court’s decision in State v. Slager, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-794, 2012-Ohio-3584, 

in support of his argument that Fugate remains “controlling [law,] regardless of whether 

concurrent sentences were imposed at different times by different Courts.” (Relator’s Objs.

to Mag.’s Decision at 1.) Relator’s reliance on Slager, however, is misplaced. The appellant 
No. 23AP-303 6

in Slager sought application of 273 days of jail-time credit to two sentences that he was 

serving consecutively, not concurrently, as in Fugate and this case. As stated above, the 

rule that governs application of jail-time credit to consecutive sentences differs from the 

rule that governs application of jail-time credit to concurrent sentences. Moreover, in 

Slager, this court expressed no opinion on the merits of the appellant’s claim for additional 

jail-time credit, because the appellant had not sought relief in mandamus but had, instead,

erroneously raised his claim regarding ODRC’s application of his jail-time credit in a postconviction motion in the underlying criminal case. Id. at ¶ 1, 18. Slager, therefore, offers 

no applicable guidance.

{¶ 20} Here, the magistrate reasoned that this case presents a situation analogous

to that in Rankin, as relator has been sentenced to concurrent prison terms by courts in 

more than one county. The magistrate concluded that, pursuant to Rankin, respondent’s 

application of jail-time credit to relator’s stated prison term from Lake County, reducing 

the stated term only by the jail-time credit certified by the Lake County Court of Common 

Pleas in that case, was proper. The magistrate reasoned, “the fact that the Lake County 

court ordered relator’s five-year sentence to be served concurrently” with the previously 

imposed sentences from Summit County “does not affect the determination that [relator] 

is not entitled to a reduction of his five-year sentence on that basis.” (Mag.’s Decision at 

19.) We agree and, like the magistrate, conclude that this determination aligns with the 

command in R.C. 2967.191(A) that a prisoner is entitled to a reduction of a prison term “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.” (Emphasis added.) 

Accordingly, we overrule relator’s first objection. 

{¶ 21} In his second objection, relator argues that the magistrate erred by relying on 

Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(E), because that regulation “was created by the respondent” 

and “purports to permit the respondent to disregard the statutory and Constitutional 

protections that prohibit the State from forcing a prisoner to serve the same sentence or 

any portion thereof twice.” (Relator’s Objs. to Mag.’s Decision at 1.) We disagree. Indeed, 

in Fugate, the Supreme Court expressly cited as relevant to its decision former Ohio 

Adm.Code 5120-2-04(F), which stated: “ ‘[i]f an offender is serving two or more sentences 

* * * concurrently, the adult parole authority shall independently reduce each sentence or 

stated prison term for the number of days confined for that offense.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) Id.

at ¶ 9, quoting former Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(F). We discern no error in the 
No. 23AP-303 7

magistrate’s reliance on Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(E), which contains nearly identical 

language to the former rule, on which the Supreme Court relied in Fugate. Accordingly, we 

overrule relator’s second objection. 

{¶ 22} Under both R.C. 2967.191 and Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(E), an offender is 

entitled to jail-time credit for days spent in confinement for the offense for which the 

offender is being sentenced. Applying that rule, in State v. Parsley, 10th Dist. No. 09AP612, 2010-Ohio-1689, ¶ 48, this court held that an offender was not entitled to jail-time 

credit against his sentence for possession of cocaine for days he spent in jail after being 

arrested on another case, because in the possession case the offender had been released on 

a recognizance bond and thus had never been incarcerated on that charge. The fact that 

the trial court ultimately ordered the offender’s sentences in both cases to run concurrently

did not alter that conclusion. Id. The rule stated in Fugate—that an offender sentenced to 

concurrent prison terms is entitled to have jail-time credit applied toward each concurrent 

prison term—only “applies to a defendant that is actually entitled to such credit pursuant 

to R.C. 2967.191” as a result of having been “held on each charge.” Parsley at ¶ 50. Applying 

that rule here, we conclude that relator has not established a clear legal right to credit 

against his Lake County sentence for days spent in confinement awaiting resolution of his 

Summit County cases. 

{¶ 23} For these reasons, we overrule relator’s objections to the magistrate’s 

decision, and we adopt the magistrate’s decision, including the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law therein, as our own. In accordance with the magistrate’s 

recommendation, we grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny relator’s 

request for a writ of mandamus. 

Objections overruled;

motion for summary judgment granted;

writ of mandamus denied.

LUPER SCHUSTER and JAMISON, JJ., concur.
No. 23AP-303 8

APPENDIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Rickey Moody, :

Relator, :

v. : No. 23AP-303

Director, Ohio Bureau of : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Sentence Computation, 

:

Respondent.

:

M A G I S T R A T E ’ S D E C I S I O N

Rendered on October 24, 2023

Rickey Moody, pro se. 

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Marcy Vonderwell, for 

respondent. 

IN MANDAMUS 

ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

{¶ 24} Relator, Rickey Moody, filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus 

ordering respondent, the Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation,2 to award him an 

additional 165 days of jail-time credit consistent with the sentences imposed by the 

Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.

I. Findings of Fact

{¶ 25} 1. Relator is an inmate incarcerated at the Grafton Correctional Institution 

in Lorain County, Ohio. 

2 Relator’s complaint listed respondent as “Director, Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation.” (Compl. at 1.)
No. 23AP-303 9

{¶ 26} 2. Respondent Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation, a division of the Ohio 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), is responsible for computing 

release dates for Ohio inmates. 

{¶ 27} 3. Relator was sentenced on December 3, 2019 in three criminal cases in the 

Summit County Court of Common Pleas and subsequently sentenced in March 2020 in a 

criminal case in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.3

{¶ 28} 4. In State v. Moody, Summit C.P. No. 2019-05-1623 (“Case No. 2019-05-

1623”), relator was sentenced to a three-year period of incarceration and awarded 23 days 

of jail-time credit. In State v. Moody, Summit C.P. No. 2018-11-3874 (“Case No. 2018-11-

3874”), relator was sentenced to a one-year period of incarceration and awarded 130 days 

of jail-time credit. In State v. Moody, Summit C.P. No. 2018-09-3184 (“Case No. 2018-

09-3184”), relator was sentenced to a three-year period of incarceration and awarded 138 

days of jail-time credit. The sentences in each of the Summit County cases were ordered 

to run concurrently with one another. 

{¶ 29} 5. In State v. Moody, Lake C.P. No. 18CR-000866 (“Case No. 18CR000866”), relator was sentenced to a five-year mandatory term of imprisonment to be 

served concurrently with the three Summit County cases. The court awarded relator 46 

days of jail-time credit. The Lake County trial court later credited relator with an 

additional 23 days of jail-time credit in one entry and an additional 11 days of jail-time 

credit in a subsequent entry. 

{¶ 30} 6. In his complaint in this mandamus action, relator asserted he had no 

adequate remedy at law because the sentencing courts properly calculated his jail-time 

credit, but respondent failed to properly apply the correctly-calculated and court-ordered 

jail-time credit to his sentence. Relator requests “the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to 

compel the respondent * * * to correctly apply the additional 165 days of jail-time credit 

properly calculated and ordered by the Summit County Common Pleas Court and to 

reduce his sentence accordingly.” (Compl. at 4.)

3 In writ actions, a court may take judicial notice of the pleadings and orders in related cases when these are 

not subject to reasonable dispute insofar as they affect the current original action. Evid.R. 201(B); State ex rel. 

Ohio Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92, 2015-Ohio-5056, ¶ 18; State ex rel. 

Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-229, ¶ 8. As the judgment entries imposing sentence and 

awarding jail-time credit in these cases are available online on the respective clerk of court’s website for each 

court, the magistrate concludes they are related to the present original action and not subject to reasonable 

dispute. Therefore, the magistrate takes judicial notice of such entries.
No. 23AP-303 10

{¶ 31} 7. On June 5, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 

12(B)(6). Attached to respondent’s motion was the affidavit of Debbie Warren, correction 

records sentence computation auditor for ODRC. Warren averred that she prepared a 

document attached to the affidavit that detailed the calculation of relator’s sentence. Also 

attached to the motion were copies of the sentencing entries from relator’s above-listed 

cases. Respondent requested that relator’s complaint be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, that the motion to dismiss 

be converted to a motion for summary judgment and that such motion be granted.

{¶ 32} 8. On June 12, 2023, a magistrate’s order was issued converting 

respondent’s June 5, 2023 motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B) and Civ.R. 56. Under the order, relator was permitted to file a 

response to the motion, “including any pertinent materials permitted under Civ.R. 56,” 

not later than July 10, 2023.

{¶ 33} 9. Relator filed a “memorandum contra motion to dismiss” on June 27, 

2023. Relator did not submit any additional materials attached to this filing.

II. Discussion and Conclusions of Law

Relator seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent to grant him an additional 165 

days of jail-time credit. Respondent argues it is entitled to summary judgment because 

relator has received the appropriate amount of jail-time credit as ordered by the trial 

courts, and, therefore, cannot demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief.

A. Summary Judgment and Mandamus Standard

{¶ 34} Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party 

demonstrates: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, (2) the moving party is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds could come to but one 

conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for 

summary judgment is made. Civ.R. 56(C); State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations 

Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 183 (1997). 

{¶ 35} In order for a court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish 

(1) the relator has a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent is under a 

clear legal duty to provide the relief, and (3) the relator has no plain and adequate remedy 

in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29 

(1983), citing State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes, 54 Ohio St.2d 41, 42 (1978). The relator bears 
No. 23AP-303 11

the burden of establishing entitlement to a writ of mandamus by clear and convincing 

evidence. State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford, 167 Ohio St.3d 453, 2022-Ohio-295, ¶ 14. “Clear 

and convincing evidence is ‘that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere 

“preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as is required 

“beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the 

trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ” State ex 

rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327, ¶ 18, quoting 

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

B. Jail-Time Credit under Ohio Law

{¶ 36} “The practice of awarding jail-time credit, although now covered by state 

statute, has its roots in the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States 

Constitutions.” State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 7. See State ex rel. 

Williams v. Chambers-Smith, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-388, 2020-Ohio-1344, ¶ 4 (“A criminal 

defendant has a general right to credit for [the time spent in] confinement prior to 

sentencing”). Pursuant to R.C. 2967.191, the “department of rehabilitation and correction 

shall reduce the prison term of a 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.” Additionally, Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04 governs ODRC’s duty 

in calculating an offender’s sentence.4 Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(A) describes the 

general practice for reducing an offender’s sentence for jail-time credit as follows:

The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce 

the minimum and maximum sentence, where applicable, the 

definite sentence, the minimum and maximum of a non-life 

felony indefinite prison term, or the stated prison term of an 

offender by the total number of days specified by the 

sentencing court in the sentencing entry as required by division 

(B)(g)(i) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code; by the number 

of days the offender was confined as a result of the offense, 

between the date of the sentencing entry and the date 

committed to the department, and by the number of days, if 

any, that the offender previously served in the custody of the 

department of rehabilitation and correction arising out of the 

offense for which the offender was convicted and sentenced as 

determined by section 2967.191 of the Revised Code.

4 Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04 was substantially updated effective May 27, 2021. 
No. 23AP-303 12

{¶ 37} Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(A).5 With regard to concurrent sentences, the 

current Administrative Code provisions provide that “[i]f an offender is serving two or 

more sentences, stated prison terms or combination thereof concurrently, the department 

shall independently reduce each sentence or stated prison term for the number of days 

confined for that offense. Release of the offender shall be based upon the longest definite, 

minimum and/or maximum sentence or stated prison term after reduction for jail time 

credit.” Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(E).6

{¶ 38} R.C. 2929.19 governs requirements for sentencing courts. The statute was 

amended effective September 28, 2012 by 2012 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 337, adding provisions 

related to jail-time credit. Under the present provisions of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i), the 

trial court is required to “[d]etermine, 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 reduce the definite prison term imposed on the offender as the offender’s 

stated prison term.” R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) provides in pertinent part as follows:

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.

5 Prior to the amendments that became effective in 2021, Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04 provided as follows: 

The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the minimum 

and maximum sentence, where applicable, the definite sentence or the 

stated prison term of an offender by the total number of days that the 

offender was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which he 

was convicted and sentenced, including confinement in lieu of bail while 

awaiting trial, confinement for examination to determine his competence to 

stand trial or sanity, confinement in a community-based correctional facility 

and program or district community-based correctional facility and program, 

where applicable, and confinement while awaiting transportation to the 

place where he is to serve his sentence.

Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04.

6 This section was unaltered by the amendments effective May 27, 2021 with the exception of renumbering 

the section from (F) to (E). 
No. 23AP-303 13

{¶ 39} Thus, pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii), an offender can file a motion 

to correct an error in determining jail-time credit at any time after sentencing. See State 

v. Thompson, 147 Ohio St.3d 29, 2016-Ohio-2769, ¶ 11 (“Prior to the enactment of 

R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii), an offender was able to seek correction of an error made in 

determining jail-time credit only on direct appeal.”); Ohio v. Simpson, 10th Dist. 

No. 21AP-52, 2021-Ohio-4066, ¶ 15. R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iv) provides that an 

“inaccurate determination” of an offender’s jail-time credit “is not grounds for setting 

aside the offender’s conviction or sentence and does not otherwise render the sentence 

void or voidable.” R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(v) provides that ODRC shall “rely upon the latest 

journal entry of the court in determining the total days of local confinement” as specified 

by that section. 

C. Application

{¶ 40} First, it is important to recognize that error in the calculation of jail-time 

credit is “remediable in the ordinary course of law by appeal or motion for jail-time credit” 

under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii). State ex rel. Williams v. McGinty, 129 Ohio St.3d 275, 

2011-Ohio-2641, ¶ 2. For this reason, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[a]lleged 

errors regarding an award of jail-time credit are not cognizable in mandamus.” State ex 

rel. Sands v. Culotta, 165 Ohio St.3d 172, 2021-Ohio-1137, ¶ 12. Relator filed with the Lake 

County Court of Common Pleas multiple motions seeking adjustments to his jail-time 

credit. Two of those motions were granted resulting in 34 days of jail-time credit in 

addition to the 46 originally provided under the court’s sentencing entry in Case 

No. 18CR-000866. Thus, relator availed himself of an adequate remedy to correct errors 

in jail-time credit calculation. 

{¶ 41} Relator states in his complaint that his jail-time credit “was properly 

calculated by the trial courts.” (Compl. at 3.) Nevertheless, citing to Fugate, relator asserts 

that respondent has failed to properly apply the court-ordered jail-time credit to his 

sentence. Specifically, relator asserts that respondent has failed to reduce his “total 

sentence by the 165 days properly calculated by Summit County.” (Compl. at 3.) Here, in 

the sentence calculation letter attached to Warren’s affidavit, Warren stated the following 

with regard to relator’s sentence in Case No. 18CR-000866:

The above listed incarcerated person was sentenced on 

12/3/2019 for three Summit County cases. Case 
No. 23AP-303 14

CR2019051623 was sentenced to 3 years and given 50 days of 

credit. Case CR2018113874 was sentenced to 1 year and given 

157 days of credit. Case CR2018093184 was also sentenced to 

3 years and given 165 days of credit. He was admitted on 

12/31/2019, at that time his controlling term was case 

CR2019051623, and his release date was certified as 

11/9/2022.

On 1/10/2020 [relator] went out to court for Lake County, ON 

3/18/2020 he was sentenced on Lake County case 

18CR000866. He was sentenced to a 5-year mandatory term 

for Possession 2925.11. He was given 46 days of credit in the 

entry and returned the next day 3/19/2020 so there was no 

conveyance time to apply. His release date was certified as 

1/30/2025. On 9/1/2020 we received an entry granting him an 

additional 23 days of jail credit. This made his total credit 69 

days, and his release date was then re-certified as 1/7/2025.

On 8/18/2022 we received another jail credit entry for Lake 

County 18CR000866 granting him another 11 days for a total 

of 80 days credit. His release date was again certified as 

12/27/2024.

(Ex. A-1, Warren Aff.)

{¶ 42} In Fugate, 2008-Ohio-856, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered the 

calculation of jail-time credit for concurrent sentences under R.C. 2967.191. In the 

underlying criminal case, Fugate was held in custody prior to sentencing on charges for 

burglary, theft, and a community-control violation. As a result of his criminal convictions 

on those charges, Fugate was sentenced to concurrent prison terms. However, Fugate 

received jail-time credit applied only against the prison term for the community-control 

violation. Reviewing Fugate’s contention on appeal that he was entitled to additional jailtime credit, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that “when concurrent prison terms are 

imposed, courts do not have the discretion to select only one term from those that are run 

concurrently against which to apply jail-time credit” because “R.C. 2967.191 requires that 

jail-time credit be applied to all prison terms imposed for charges on which the offender 

has been held.” Fugate at ¶ 12. The court further stated that “[s]o long as an offender is 

held on a charge while awaiting trial or sentencing, the offender is entitled to jail-time 

credit for that sentence; a court cannot choose one of several concurrent terms against 

which to apply the credit.” Id. The court found that applying credit to only one term where 

a defendant is sentenced to concurrent terms would violate the Equal Protection Clause 
No. 23AP-303 15

because such application “would, in effect, negate the credit for time that the offender has 

been held.” Id. at ¶ 22. As a result, the court held that “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.

{¶ 43} Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Ohio clarified Fugate in State ex rel. 

Rankin v. Mohr, 130 Ohio St.3d 400, 2011-Ohio-5934. In that case, Rankin filed a 

complaint in mandamus in the Fourth District Court of Appeals seeking to compel the 

director of ODRC to recalculate the expiration of his stated prison term by crediting each 

of his concurrent prison terms with 734 days of jail-time credit.7 The court of appeals 

found that Rankin was involved in a burglary spree in Adams, Scioto, Pike, and Highland 

Counties in 2006. Rankin received 82 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in 

Adams County in 2007, 8 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Scioto County 

in 2007, 18 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced in Pike County in 2008, and 

52 days of jail-time credit when he was sentenced to a 13-year term of incarceration in 

Highland County in 2009. Rankin agreed that the controlling sentence for determining 

his release date was the Highland County sentence, but asserted that he should receive 

734 additional days of jail-time credit for 644 days of confinement in prison from the time 

he had already served on the other sentences in addition to the jail-time credit he received 

in those other cases. The court of appeals denied the writ of mandamus.

{¶ 44} On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, finding that ODRC “had no 

duty to reduce Rankin’s Highland County 13-year sentence by the number of days that 

Rankin was confined for other crimes before he received the 13-year sentence.” (Emphasis 

sic.) Rankin at ¶ 2. The court stated that “[t]he fact that the Highland County court 

ordered that Rankin’s 13-year sentence be served concurrently with his prior sentences 

does not affect our determination that Rankin is not entitled to a reduction of his 13-year 

sentence.” Id. The court distinguished Fugate, stating that it did “not require a different 

result, because in that case, the defendant was held on each of the charges before his 

sentencing, and he was thus entitled to a reduction of each concurrent prison term.” Id. 

{¶ 45} The parallels between this matter and Rankin are readily apparent. Similar 

to the offender in Rankin, relator was sentenced to concurrent prison terms in more than 

one county. The sentence calculation letter submitted by respondent reflects that the 

7 See Rankin v. Moore, 4th Dist. No. 10CA9 (May 10, 2011). 
No. 23AP-303 16

expiration of relator’s prison term imposed by Case No. 18CR-000866 from Lake County 

has been altered only by the jail-time credit applied in that case. Under Rankin, ODRC’s 

application of jail-time credit to relator’s stated prison term is proper. Although relator 

asserts that he is entitled to the jail-time credit from the earlier sentences in Summit 

County, the fact that the Lake County court ordered relator’s five-year sentence to be 

served concurrently with those prior sentences does not affect the determination that he 

is not entitled to a reduction of his five-year sentence on that basis. Rankin at ¶ 2. See also 

State v. Hunter, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-183, 2008-Ohio-6962, ¶ 19-20; State v. Jones, 8th 

Dist. No. 110412, 2021-Ohio-4175, ¶ 19. This determination is in alignment with the 

command in R.C. 2967.191 that ODRC “shall reduce the prison term of a 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.” (Emphasis added.) The 

same is true for the requirement in Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(E) that ODRC is to 

“independently reduce each sentence or stated prison term for the number of days 

confined for that offense” where “an offender is serving two or more sentences, stated 

prison terms or combination thereof concurrently.” (Emphasis added.) For the same 

reasons as stated in Rankin, the holding of Fugate does not compel a different result. 

Therefore, consistent with Rankin, relator is unable to establish a clear legal right to the 

requested relief or that respondent is under a clear legal duty to provide such relief. 

D. Conclusion

{¶ 46} Accordingly, it is the decision and recommendation of the magistrate that 

summary judgment should be granted in favor of respondent and relator’s request for a 

writ of mandamus should be denied.

/S/ MAGISTRATE 

 JOSEPH E. WENGER IV
No. 23AP-303 17

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as 

error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or 

legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a 

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 

53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects 

to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 

53(D)(3)(b). A party may file written objections to the 

magistrate's decision within fourteen days of the filing of the 

decision.