State v. Cupp (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 5211

In 2015 Adam R. Cupp was indicted in Geauga County on multiple felonies; bond was set at $400,000 after an initial municipal complaint and indictment.
At the time bond was set he was already incarcerated on a probation-violation sentence from an unrelated domestic-violence matter; that probation sentence ended July 29, 2016.
Cupp pled guilty to some charges in June 2016; sentencing occurred September 22, 2016. The plea agreement left jail-time-credit unresolved for the sentencing court.
The trial court awarded jail-time credit beginning July 30, 2016 (the day after the unrelated probation sentence ended), giving Cupp 58 days credit.
The Eleventh District reversed, reading R.C. 2967.191 to require credit from the date Cupp’s bond was increased (August 7, 2015) because he remained incarcerated for lack of bond. The state appealed and the court of appeals certified a conflict with other districts. Cupp died during the appeals process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cupp)	Held
Whether a defendant is entitled to jail-time credit for pretrial confinement while held on bond when, during the same period, the defendant is serving an unrelated sentence	No — defendant not entitled to credit for time served that arises from an unrelated sentence; credit should begin when confinement is actually attributable to the offense at issue	Yes — statute awards credit for days confined “for any reason arising out of the offense,” including confinement in lieu of bail, so credit should run from the date bond was increased and defendant could not make bail	No — defendant is not entitled to credit while simultaneously serving an unrelated sentence; credit began after the unrelated sentence ended
Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the certified conflict after the defendant’s death (mootness/jurisdiction)	Court may exercise discretion to decide the certified conflict because the State retains an interest and the question presents a matter of public/great general interest	Moot — defendant’s death renders the appeal non-justiciable and the court should dismiss as there is no live controversy	Court exercised discretion and answered the certified conflict despite Cupp’s death; the merits were decided

Fugate v. State, 883 N.E.2d 440 (Ohio 2008) (discussing equal-protection roots of jail-time-credit scheme)
Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 505 N.E.2d 966 (Ohio 1987) (court may decide issues of great public or general interest despite technical mootness)
Makley v. State, 192 N.E. 738 (Ohio 1934) (death of criminal defendant during appeal generally moots case)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (equal-protection principles applicable to indigent defendants)
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970) (equal-protection precedent concerning punishment tied to inability to pay)
Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1971) (indigency and equal-protection limitations on converting fines to imprisonment)