State v. McCoy, 2022 Ohio 995

David McCoy was indicted in Butler County (Nov. 20, 2019) on two counts of sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(5)) for consensual sex with his adult stepdaughter; a Butler County arrest warrant issued the same day.
At indictment he was jailed in Hamilton County on unrelated charges and was not served the Butler warrant until March 6, 2020; he was then transferred to Butler County custody.
Jury convicted McCoy on both counts (Oct. 2020); trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms (48 and 54 months) with oral pronouncement granting 263 days jail-time credit on each count but the journalized entry credited 263 days only on Count 2.
Trial court imposed consecutive sentences after stating required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the hearing; the written entry recited the statutory findings in full.
McCoy appealed raising three issues: (1) jail-time credit calculation (including entitlement to an extra 109 days and mismatch between oral pronouncement and entry), (2) adequacy of consecutive-sentencing findings, and (3) as-applied equal protection challenge to the incest statute criminalizing stepparent–adult stepchild consensual sex.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jail-time credit calculation	State: Because sentences are consecutive, jail-time credit is applied once to aggregate term; no credit for time detained on unrelated Hamilton County charges.	McCoy: Entitled to additional 109 days for time in Hamilton County (Nov 20–Mar 6) and the journal entry must match oral credit on both counts.	Court: Denied extra 109 days (Hamilton detention was for unrelated charges); remanded for limited resentencing because the journal entry conflicted with the oral pronouncement about credits.
Consecutive-sentence findings (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4))	State: Trial court’s statements plus the entry show required findings; precise statutory phrasing at hearing not required.	McCoy: Trial court failed on the record to state that consecutive sentences are "not disproportionate to the danger the offender poses to the public."	Court: Overruled; transcript shows the court considered proportionality as to seriousness and public danger and the written entry contains the required findings.
Equal protection challenge to R.C. 2907.03(A)(5)	State: The statute is constitutional under existing precedent.	McCoy: Statute is unconstitutional as applied (criminalizes consensual stepparent–adult stepchild conduct), citing concern after Mole.	Court: Waived—McCoy failed to raise the constitutional challenge at trial; declined to address it on appeal.

State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (2008) (jail-time credit rules; credit applied to each concurrent term but only once for consecutive aggregate terms)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing)
State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (2007) (upholding R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) against equal protection challenge)
State v. Mole, 149 Ohio St.3d 215 (2016) (struck down another R.C. 2907.03 variant on equal protection grounds)
State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d 476 (2003) (trial court makes factual determination of days of confinement credit)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate-review standard for felony sentencing under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (failure to raise constitutional challenge at trial waives issue on appeal)
State v. Woodards, 6 Ohio St.2d 14 (1966) (principle regarding appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)