The Akron Legal News

Court rules electronic monitoring does not entitle defendant to jail-time credit

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 11, 2015

A Cincinnati court of appeals recently ruled that electronically monitored detention does not count as “confinement” when it comes to granting a defendant credit for jail time served.

The decision was rendered after the 1st District Court of Appeals considered the case of Eric Kleinholz who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for violating the terms of his community control.

Kleinholz appealed from the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas arguing that the time he spend on electronically monitored detention should have counted toward his prison sentence.

“After reviewing R.C. 2967.191 and the applicable case law, we cannot conclude that Kleinholz’s time on EMD constituted confinement,” Presiding Judge Patrick Fischer wrote on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel. “We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment.”

According to the factual and procedural history of the case, on April 1, 2014, Kleinholz pleaded guilty to a domestic violence offense and he was sentenced to three years of community control with multiple conditions, including that he serve 180 days in a correctional facility, followed by 180 days on electronically monitored detention.

The following February, Kleinholz was found guilty of violating the terms of his supervision but the trial court only continued the sanctions with some added conditions.

On April 6, 2015, Kleinholz was charged again with violating his community control by testing positive for opiates three separate times.

He pleaded no contest and was subsequently ordered to serve 18 months in prison after the trial court revoked his community control.

At his sentencing hearing, Kleinholz asked the trial court to give him jail-time credit for the 180 days he spent being electronically monitored.

The trial court denied the request, granting 223 days for time spent in jail and 180 days for time spent in a correctional facility, but no credit for the EMD.

In a single assignment of error on appeal, Kleinholz contested the decision, arguing that he was entitled to the credit because EMD was considered “confinement.”

He cited 6th District Court of Appeals precedent in support of his claim.

“The state urges us, on the other hand, to follow a number of appellate districts, which have declined to treat electronically monitored house arrest (EMHA) and EMD that is imposed as part of probation or community control, as confinement for jail-credit purposes,” Fischer wrote.

The court of appeals considered the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Nagle that rehab as a condition of probation did not constitute confinement for the purposes of jail-time credit.

Similarly, in State v. Napier, the high court held that confinement necessarily restricts movement. Only a person who is not free to “come and go as he wished” would be considered confined for the purposes of R.C. 2967.191.

Fischer went on to cite the 10th, 5th and 3rd District courts, all of which held that a defendant’s movements under EMD are not sufficiently restrained to constitute confinement.

“After reviewing the case law, we decline to follow the 6th District’s analysis,” Fischer wrote. “Pursuant to the analysis of ‘confinement’ articulated by the Ohio Supreme Court in Napier and Nagle, the court must consider the circumstances surrounding the restraint of the defendant’s physical movements without regard to whether the defendant’s movements may constitute a violation of probation or community control.

“We therefore agree with the 10th, 5th and 3rd appellate districts, which have held that EMHA and EMD do not qualify as confinement for purposes of jail-time credit.”

Fischer concluded by affirming the judgment of the Hamilton County court with Judges Patrick DeWine and Peter Stautberg joining him to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Kleinholz, 2015-Ohio-4280.

[Back]