State v. Boscarino, 2019 Ohio 3917

Defendant Nikolaos Boscarino was convicted after jury trial of felonious assault (first-degree felony), assault (1st‑degree misdemeanor), and resisting arrest (1st‑degree misdemeanor); court found him a repeat violent offender and imposed a mandatory seven‑year prison term plus concurrent 180‑day county jail terms; 68 days of jail‑time credit was awarded.
Boscarino asserted he had been on electronically monitored home detention (EHDP) from September 30, 2011 to November 2, 2012 and sought additional jail‑time credit (variously claimed as 400, 441, 509 days) for that pretrial home confinement.
The Division of Court Services initially reported 68 days of credit (various short intervals totaling 68 days). The trial court later reaffirmed the 68‑day credit and denied additional credit for the EHDP period.
The trial court relied on precedent holding that pretrial electronically monitored home confinement imposed as a condition of bail does not constitute detention for purposes of awarding jail‑time credit.
Boscarino appealed the denial of additional credit; this court reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pretrial electronically‑monitored home detention (EHDP/EMHA) qualifies as "confinement in lieu of bail" for statutory jail‑time credit	State: EHDP was a condition of bail, not statutory detention; pretrial EMHA is not creditable	Boscarino: He was confined under house arrest for ~441 days pretrial and is entitled to credit for that time	Court: Pretrial EHDP imposed as bail condition does not count as confinement for jail‑time credit; trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding only 68 days

State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358, 819 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 2004) (pretrial electronic home monitoring is generally not creditable as jail‑time credit)
State v. Ragland, 118 N.E.3d 1051 (2d Dist. 2018) (discusses correction of jail‑time credit and standard of review for such motions)