State v. Fillinger, 72 N.E.3d 671

In 2013 Fillinger pled no contest to attempted gross sexual imposition (4th‑degree felony) and was sentenced to community control with electronic monitored house arrest (EMHA).
The sentencing entry placed him on EMHA without specifying exceptions.
In August 2015 his EMHA was removed; later he admitted violating community control and received an 18‑month prison sentence.
At sentencing Fillinger sought jail‑time credit for the days he spent on postconviction EMHA; the trial court granted the credit.
The State appealed, arguing postconviction EMHA does not qualify as "confinement" for jail‑time credit purposes.
The Twelfth District affirmed, holding that postconviction house arrest is "confinement" under R.C. 2929.01(P) and thus credits apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether time on postconviction electronically monitored house arrest (EMHA) counts as "confinement" for jail‑time credit	EMHA is not confinement because the defendant could leave the home and was not physically restrained; Nagle/Napier framework requires restraint on freedom of movement	Postconviction house arrest is statutorily defined as a period of confinement under R.C. 2929.01(P), so those days qualify as time served	The court held EMHA imposed as a postconviction community‑control sanction is "confinement" and awarded jail‑time credit

State v. Blankenship, 192 Ohio App.3d 639 (10th Dist. 2011) (held postconviction EMHA that permitted leaving for work/treatment was not confinement)
State v. Nagle, 23 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1986) (confinement requires severe restraint on freedom of movement)
State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (Ohio 2001) (community‑based correctional facility constituted confinement because movement was controlled)
State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358 (Ohio 2004) (pretrial electronic home monitoring is not detention for escape prosecution)