State v. Jeko, 2019 Ohio 2044

Defendant Charles D. Jeko was indicted for second‑degree felonious assault and released on bond with a GPS/electronic monitoring and no‑contact condition.
Electronic monitoring began July 28, 2016 (pretrial), continued through Jeko’s January 24, 2017 conviction, and remained in place post‑conviction while the state appealed the grant of a new trial.
The trial court vacated the electronic monitoring condition on August 28, 2017.
This court reversed the grant of a new trial and remanded for sentencing; at resentencing the trial court gave Jeko 353 days’ jail‑time credit for time on electronic monitoring.
The State appealed, arguing electronic monitoring imposed as a bond condition does not constitute “confinement” under R.C. 2967.191(A) and therefore does not entitle Jeko to credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jeko)	Held
Whether time on electronic monitoring as a bond condition counts as "confinement" under R.C. 2967.191(A) for jail‑time credit	Electronic monitoring imposed as a condition of bond is not confinement; no credit should be given	Time spent under electronic monitoring arising out of the offense is effectively confinement in lieu of bail and warrants credit	Electronic monitoring imposed as a pretrial/bond condition (including postconviction/pre‑sentence continuation) is not "detention"/"confinement" under R.C. 2967.191(A); defendant is not entitled to credit

State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358 (Ohio 2004) (pretrial electronic home monitoring is not a form of detention under R.C. 2921.01(E))