State v. Bowling
2017 Ohio 8539
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Three defendants (Bowling, Melzer, Blackford) were on community control with reserved prison time if they violated terms; all participated in a drug-court program.
- Each spent periods subject to curfew (house-at-certain-hours enforced by GPS/electronic monitoring): Bowling 36 days, Melzer 51 days, Blackford 145 days.
- Each subsequently violated community control and was resentenced; the trial court awarded jail-time credit that included the days spent on curfew.
- The state appealed, arguing curfew days are not "confined" days for purposes of jail-time credit under R.C. 2967.191 / 2949.08(B).
- The trial court relied on this court's earlier Fillinger decision to justify credit for house-arrest style sanctions; the appellate court distinguished Fillinger and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time spent on curfew/GPS-monitored curfew qualifies as "confined" for jail-time credit | Curfew is functional confinement and should count toward jail-time credit | Curfew does not restrain freedom to the degree of confinement; defendants remained free to leave outside curfew hours | Reversed: curfew days do not constitute "confined" days and cannot be credited as jail-time credit |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nagle, 23 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1986) (time in a residential rehab facility did not count as confinement because the defendant could leave of his own volition)
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (Ohio 2001) (time at a community-based correctional facility counted as confinement where the defendant was subject to staff control and could not freely come and go)
- State v. Blankenship, 192 Ohio App.3d 639 (10th Dist. 2011) (defines "confinement" as restraint preventing a defendant from leaving official custody of his own volition)