State v. Harvey, 2017 Ohio 5512

Ricardo L. Harvey was arrested on a tampering-with-evidence charge in June 2015, released on a personal/own-recognizance bond, and later bound over to the common pleas court.
On October 29, 2015, Harvey pled guilty to trafficking in heroin (fourth-degree felony) and tampering with evidence (third-degree felony); the court accepted the plea and continued bond as own recognizance.
The court sentenced Harvey the same day to concurrent terms totaling 24 months, with the sentence to begin November 1, 2015.
Harvey did not appeal his plea or sentence. Nine months later he filed a pro se motion seeking 109 days’ jail-time credit for the period he was on bond (July 13–Nov. 1, 2015), arguing that the risk of re-arrest and bond conditions amounted to “confinement” under R.C. 2967.191.
The trial court denied the motion; the state opposed, and Harvey appealed. The appellate court reviewed whether time free on bond qualified as "confinement" for sentencing credit purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether time spent free on own-recognizance bond counts as "confinement" under R.C. 2967.191 for jail-time credit	State: time on bond is not confinement; no authority supports credit for being free on bond	Harvey: risk of re-arrest and bond conditions meant he was mentally/constructively confined and thus entitled to credit for time on bond	Court held time on own-recognizance bond (without severe restraints) is not "confinement" under R.C. 2967.191 and denied credit
Whether res judicata bars Harvey’s claim filed after sentencing	State initially raised res judicata in lower court; on appeal the state conceded it waived res judicata	Harvey argued entitlement regardless of procedural default	Court waived res judicata concerns and addressed the merits because statute allows post-sentencing correction of jail-credit errors and state did not preserve res judicata on appeal
Proper standard of review for credit determination	State: sentencing credit reviewed for whether it is contrary to law/unsupported by record	Harvey: sought de novo relief for statutory credit	Court applied clear-and-convincing/contrary-to-law standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and Marcum

Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (parole imposes custody-like restraints)
State v. Nagle, 23 Ohio St.3d 185 (release to a rehabilitation center was a probation condition, not confinement for credit)
State v. Faulkner, 102 Ohio App.3d 602 (house arrest while on bond is release, not confinement, for credit purposes)
State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358 (discussing pretrial release conditions and related credit issues)