State v. Macko, 2020 Ohio 3410

March 13, 2019: Macko failed to appear for misdemeanor-theft sentencing; municipal court issued bench warrant.
March 21, 2019: Arrested after high-speed chase in stolen vehicle; same day served with municipal bench warrant and held in jail.
April 1, 2019: Municipal court sentenced Macko to 150 days for the misdemeanor, with 12 days credit (i.e., 19 days remained when felony sentencing later occurred); charges from the March 21 incident were dismissed in municipal court.
April 16, 2019: Grand jury indicted Macko on six felony counts stemming from the March 21 incident and a jail incident; June 26, 2019 plea to several felonies; Count 5 dismissed.
July 29, 2019: Trial court imposed an aggregate 72-month prison sentence on the felonies, ordered specific counts concurrent and consecutive as described, and awarded zero jail-time credit on the felony sentence; the sentencing entry did not state whether the felony term was concurrent with the misdemeanor term.
Appeal focused on two issues: (1) whether the felony sentence runs concurrently with the misdemeanor sentence due to the court’s silence, and (2) whether Macko is entitled to jail-time credit on the felony sentence for pretrial and precommitment confinement.

Issue	Macko's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether felony and misdemeanor sentences run concurrently where the sentencing entry is silent	Silence on consecutive service requires concurrent sentences under R.C. 2929.41; thus felony runs concurrent with remaining 19 days of misdemeanor	Sentences need not be treated as concurrent beyond what the court intended	Court: Silent entry makes sentences concurrent; felony sentence deemed concurrent with the 19 remaining misdemeanor days
Whether jail-time credit must be applied to the felony sentence for days incarcerated before felony sentencing	Entitled to credit for all days held on charges arising from the felony while awaiting resolution (argues up to 117 days or, alternatively, 45 days for overlapping pre-plea/plea periods)	Credit not due for days spent serving a separate sentence already imposed (time served on misdemeanor not creditable to later felony)	Court: Macko is entitled to 11 days credit (March 21–April 1) because he was held on both cases then; not entitled to credit for days served solely on the misdemeanor sentence after April 1

State v. Polus, 145 Ohio St.3d 266 (establishes general rule that sentences run concurrently unless statute or court specifies otherwise)
State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (requires jail-time credit be applied to each concurrent prison term imposed for charges on which the offender was held)
State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d 476 (trial court must determine number of days of confinement to be credited toward sentence)
State v. Cupp, 156 Ohio St.3d 207 (defendant not entitled to jail-time credit for confinement that arose from an unrelated case or sentence already being served)
Hamilton v. Adkins, 10 Ohio App.3d 217 (when sentencing entry is ambiguous or silent about concurrency, R.C. 2929.41 requires that sentences run concurrently)