State v. Gonzales, 2017 Ohio 2720

In Feb 2016 police executed a search warrant at Gonzales’s home, found illegal drugs, and he was arrested and jailed.
A probation-violation detainer (holder) from a 2013 drug case was immediately issued; Gonzales remained incarcerated for 89 days before a May 4, 2016 indictment in the new case.
The state later indicted Gonzales on nine drug counts (May 2016); he pled guilty to four counts and was sentenced to an aggregate five-year term at a July 7, 2016 hearing.
Defense requested credit for the full 89 days (arrest to indictment) because the probation holder was based on the same facts as the later convictions; the trial court awarded only 59 days (post-indictment confinement).
The appellate court reversed, holding the 89 days arose out of the offense of which he was convicted and therefore must be credited; one judge dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-indictment confinement while held solely on a probation-violation holder must be credited against a later sentence for offenses that arise from the same facts	State: credit is not required when confinement was solely on a probation violation from a prior case	Gonzales: confinement arose "out of" the later offense because the probation holder was based on the same facts that produced the later convictions; thus full pre-indictment time should be credited	Appellate court: credited the full 89 days because R.C. 2967.191 entitles credit for time confined that "arises out of" the offense of conviction when the probation hold was predicated on the same facts as the conviction (reversed and remanded)

State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (recognizing equal-protection roots of jail-time credit and addressing credit when defendant is held on both new charges and a community-control violation)
State v. Moore, 67 N.E.3d 68 (11th Dist.) (holding jail-time credit is not given for confinement on unrelated offenses; cited by dissent)