Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima
Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima


The professional team at Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima
  1. Home
  2.  | 
  3. Criminal Defense
  4.  | Does Post-Conviction House Arrest Count for Jail Time Credit?

Does Post-Conviction House Arrest Count for Jail Time Credit?

by | May 3, 2018 | Criminal Defense

The answer is no according to the most recent decision released by the Twelfth District Court of Appeals. In State v. Hurst (2018), 93 N.E.3d 1007, 2018-Ohio142, the Court issued a decision seemingly in conflict with the decision it issued roughly a year prior to Hurst in State v. Fillinger (2017), 72 N.E.3d. 671, 2016-Ohio-8455.

The Court in Fillinger held that a defendant was “confined”, as defined by the Ohio Revised Code, during the time he spent on electronic monitored house arrest (“EMHA”) following his conviction and therefore was entitled to jail time credit for those days served on EMHA. The Twelfth District, though, subsequently reversed itself in Hurst and determined that the defendant’s EMHA did not meet the definition of “confined” and thus her time served while on EMHA did not qualify for jail time credit.

In Hurst the Court focused on the fact that the defendant, while on EMHA, was permitted to leave her home to attend AA and NA meetings for nine hours a week, her cognitive intervention program for three hours a week, and to visit her probation officer one hour a week, as well as to attend her court hearings and for any medical emergencies. The defendant was also permitted to return to her previous residence in order to retrieve some of her belongings so that she could move to a new home. Since, in the opinion of the Court, the defendant’s freedom of movement was not restrained to the extent that she could not leave her home on her own volition coupled with the fact that she was actually permitted to leave her home for certain purposes, the Court found that she was not “confined” and therefore did not earn hail time credit while on EMHA. In reaching this decision, the Court discounted that a violation of her EMHA could result in a conviction for escape and/or a probation violation.

So, as it currently stands, defendants are not going to receive jail time credit for time served while on EMHA in the Twelfth District (Brown, Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Fayette, Madison, Preble and Warren Counties).


The Ohio Supreme Court recently held that a defendant is not entitled to days he or she spent in postconviction house arrest. In Ohio v. Reed, 2020-Ohio-4255, the defendant was placed on five years of community control and given a five year suspended prison sentence. Defendant subsequently violated that community control and was placed on house arrest. He was subsequently placed on electronic monitoring after new charges were filed against him.

Defendant ultimately admitted to the community control violation and argued that he was entitled to jail time credit for the period of time he spent on house arrest and electronic monitoring. Although the trial court rejected this argument, the Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The State subsequently appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Interpretation of “Confinement” is critical

In its decision, the Court focused on Revised Code § 2967.191(A), which describes the types of confinement that entitle a defendant to jail time credit. That statuts states, in pertinent part: “[t]he 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”

The Court noted that the General Assembly, by giving an illustrative list of the types of confinement that qualify for jail time credit, demonstrated that jail time credit should not be given for all types of confinement. The Court noted that this list must be given effect, otherwise it would be superfluous, and the Court is obligated to avoid rendering any provision superfluous.

As such, a defendant imprisoned for a felony or misdemeanor is entitled to a credit if he or she was confined while waiting for trial, for a determination of competency or sanity, or for transportation to the place where the sentence is to be served or if he was confined in a juvenile facility. Each of these situations involves a public or private facility intended for penal confinement. Per the Court, the legislature has expressed the intent that credit is to be given only for the time a defendant is in a public or private facility. Confinement in a personal residence, as the Court notes, does not qualify under the statute.

Therefore, the Court held that Revised Code § 2967.191(A) is plain and unambiguous and limits a jail-time credit to specific types of confinement-those in which a defendant is confined in a public or private facility. The statute does not provide for a reduction in sentence for a term of postconviction house arrest or electronic monitoring.