Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cantygreen1 sentence2019Franklin No. 15AP-715, 2015-Ohio-5241, ¶9 (“Prior to the enactment of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii), this court held that motions for jail-time credit were subject to the doctrine of res judicata except when the alleged calculation error was clerical or mathematical. * * * The enactment of this statute expanded the ability of a defendant to challenge an alleged jail-time credit error.”). {¶20} We find these recent decisions persuasive. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Papczungreen1 sentence2013Summit No. 26560, 2013-Ohio-1162, ¶ 12 (Belfance, J., concurring in judgment only) (suggesting that a trial court may have limited jurisdiction to correct a jail-time credit error upon consideration of a motion filed under Section 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grava v. Parkman Township
green
2 sentences2022O'Malley v. Russo, 156 Ohio St. 3d 548 , 2019-Ohio-1698 , 130 N.E.3d 256 , ¶ 27 quoting Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), syllabus. {¶16} Appellant did raise the alleged jail-time-credit error in his previously- filed motion for judicial release. 2022O'Malley v. Russo, 156 Ohio St. 3d 548 , 2019-Ohio-1698 , 130 N.E.3d 256 , ¶ 27 quoting Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), syllabus. {¶16} Appellant did raise the alleged jail-time-credit error in his previously- filed motion for judicial release. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State ex rel. O'Malley v. Russo (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022O'Malley v. Russo, 156 Ohio St. 3d 548 , 2019-Ohio-1698 , 130 N.E.3d 256 , ¶ 27 quoting Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), syllabus. {¶16} Appellant did raise the alleged jail-time-credit error in his previously- filed motion for judicial release. 2022O'Malley v. Russo, 156 Ohio St. 3d 548 , 2019-Ohio-1698 , 130 N.E.3d 256 , ¶ 27 quoting Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), syllabus. {¶16} Appellant did raise the alleged jail-time-credit error in his previously- filed motion for judicial release. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence2021Preble No. CA2017-09-010, 2018-Ohio-3338, ¶ 17 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2019Geauga No. 2014-G-3185, 2014-Ohio-5076, ¶ 15 , quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). {¶12} We note that prior to the enactment of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) in 2012, an offender could only seek correction of a jail time credit error on direct appeal or the matter would be barred by res judicata. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. O'Brien
green
1 sentence2018In addition, the court observed that the jail time credit analysis was “somewhat convoluted in that the Defendant was sentenced on a revocation case arising out of the same facts as the herein case.” Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State ex rel. Williams v. McGinty
green
2 sentences2013Williams v. McGinty, 129 Ohio St.3d 275 , 2011-Ohio-2641 , 951 N.E.2d 755 . 2013Williams v. McGinty, 129 Ohio St.3d 275 , 2011-Ohio-2641 , 951 N.E.2d 755 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Ruby
green
1 sentence2003And, like a motion to suppress, an objection grounded on a defendant's R.C. 2967.191 right and the court's duty to enforce it is determined on a preponderance of the evidence standard, not the reasonable doubt standard. {¶ 22} As a final matter, the State asks us to revisit our holding in State v. Ruby, 149 Ohio App.3d 541 , 2002-Ohio-5381 , to the extent that it conflicts with our holding in State v. Zuder (Feb. 7, 1997), Champaign App. No. 96-CA-11. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.