State v. Carter, 2013 Ohio 5163

Carter was indicted for heroin possession and possession of cocaine (case 2012-CR-1531); cocaine count later dismissed.
Carter pled no contest and was found guilty of heroin possession and retaliation; sentenced to six months on cocaine count and nine months concurrent on retaliation count.
At sentencing, the court credited Carter with 20 days of jail time based on records; noted a municipal sentence from Oct 10, 2012, to Feb 14, 2013.
Court refused jail time credit from Oct 24, 2012, to Jan 30, 2013 because Carter was held on the separate misdemeanor sentence.
Carter did not request an evidentiary hearing or contest the stated facts; he objected to the jail credit calculation post-sentencing.
Appellant challenges jail time credit calculations under R.C. 2967.191 and raises equal protection and due process claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jail time credit was properly calculated for pre-sentence incarceration on an unrelated offense	Carter asserts entitlement to credit for all pre-sentence confinement arising from the offense.	State contends credit should not apply to separate, unrelated offense confinement.	No error; credit not awarded for separate offense confinement.
Whether denying credit for unrelated misdemeanor confinement violates equal protection	Carter argues disparate treatment compared to similar cases.	State relies on Haddox to show Haddox misapplied; distinguishable because confinement arose from a separate offense.	Not a constitutional violation; Haddox distinguishable; equal protection not violated.
Whether due process was violated by denying a separate hearing on jail time credit	Carter contends a hearing was required to determine jail time credit.	Facts needed to compute credit were already in the record and presented at sentencing.	No due process violation; no separate hearing necessary where record contains requisite facts.

State v. Dewey, 2013-Ohio-2118 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25515, 2013) (jail time credit required for pre-sentence confinement arising from the offense)
State v. Coyle, 2010-Ohio-2130 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23450, 2010) (hearing needed only when factual information is lacking)
State v. Ayers, 2013-Ohio-4234 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25489, 2013) (application of 2967.191; pre-sentence credits when facts are present)
Haddox v. Houser, 44 Ohio App.2d 389, 339 N.E.2d 666 (10th Dist. 1975) (distinguishes whether confinement arises from separate offense)
State v. Nunez, 2007-Ohio-1054 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21495, 2007) (basis for when a hearing is required to determine jail credit)