State v. Bryant, 151 N.E.3d 1096

Background

In 2010 Bryant was indicted for a multi-county armed-robbery spree; in 2011 he pled guilty in Franklin County and the court (with the parties' agreement) awarded 210 days of jail-time credit and imposed a 10-year sentence concurrent with a Ross County sentence.
Bryant later claimed his actual pretrial confinement on the Franklin County matter totaled about 539 days (with overlapping detainers/charges in Ross, Pike, Scioto counties) and repeatedly moved for additional credit (motions in 2013, 2018, and 2019).
The trial court summarily denied the later motions, citing the parties’ sentencing agreement, res judicata, and concluding there was “no evidence” Bryant had not been awarded appropriate credit.
Bryant supplemented his 2019 motion with a sentencing transcript, affidavit, and jail/docket records showing 539 days confined and at most 208 days attributable to unrelated confinement, and the State filed no evidentiary rebuttal.
The Tenth District held R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(h)(iii) (as interpreted in State v. Thompson) permits a sentencing court to correct jail-credit errors not raised at sentencing; because Bryant produced evidence and the State did not rebut it, the trial court plainly erred in denying relief without considering the merits.
The court sustained both assignments of error, rejected application of the invited-error doctrine to this sentencing-credit context (applying plain-error review instead), reversed, and remanded for merits proceedings to compute any additional credit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Does R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(h)(iii)/Thompson allow a post-sentence motion to correct jail-time credit despite finality/res judicata?	Statute is not retroactive and res judicata bars successive challenges to credit.	Thompson and the statute allow correction of credit for errors not raised at sentencing, saving the motion from res judicata.	The statute (per Thompson) applies; Bryant’s claimed error was not raised at sentencing, so res judicata did not bar at least one substantive consideration.
2) Did the trial court err on the merits by denying additional credit where Bryant showed ~539 days confined but only 210 credited?	Parties agreed to 210 days at sentencing; that agreement forecloses relief.	Bryant produced records showing 539 days confined and at most 208 days possibly attributable to unrelated custody; State produced no rebuttal.	Court found Bryant’s evidence showed he was entitled to more than 210 days and the trial court plainly erred in saying there was "no evidence"—remanded for substantive calculation.
3) Does the invited-error doctrine or plain error govern counsel’s failure to challenge jail-credit at sentencing?	Invited-error prevents relief because defense counsel proposed the 210-day figure.	Invited-error is inappropriate for mistaken sentencing credit proposals; any failure to object is reviewed for plain error.	Court rejected application of invited-error and proceeded under plain-error principles.
4) Are successive motions for credit barred by res judicata where prior motions were summarily denied?	Successive motions are barred; Bryant had multiple opportunities and failed to appeal earlier denials.	When prior motions were dismissed without substantive consideration or for lack of jurisdiction, res judicata should not bar a genuine merits review.	Where prior motions were not substantively adjudicated and the movant produces evidence that the error was not raised at sentencing, res judicata should not be applied rigidly; remand for merits.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Thompson, 147 Ohio St.3d 29 (Ohio 2016) (statute grants sentencing court authority to correct jail-credit errors not raised at sentencing)
State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (Ohio 2008) (constitutional/statutory right to credit for pretrial confinement)
State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 2012) (trial courts lack authority to reconsider valid final judgments but retain jurisdiction to correct clerical errors)
State v. Cupp, 156 Ohio St.3d 207 (Ohio 2018) (no jail-credit for time confined on an unrelated case)
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 488 (Ohio 2001) (res judicata should not be applied so rigidly as to work an injustice)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (plain-error standard for plea-sentence related errors)