State v. Osborne, 2011 Ohio 2363

Appellant Jack Osborne challenged the trial court's denial of jail time credit for time served on Electronically Monitored Home Detention (EMHD) while on community control.
Osborne was on EMHD as a condition of bail after multiple DUI-related convictions and violations of community control.
The trial court previously sentenced Osborne to prison terms and ordered other sanctions; he later received a judicial release but remained subject to supervision.
In 2010 Osborne was placed on EMHD following a community control violation hearing and sought credit for LMCCC time and EMHD time.
The trial court granted 34 days LMCCC credit and 1 day Richland County jail credit, but denied EMHD credit.
The appellate court upheld the denial, distinguishing EMHD from confinement for purposes of RC 2967.191 and QR 2921.01(E).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EMHD qualifies as confinement for jail time credit	Osborne argued EMHD is confinement under RC 2967.191.	State argued EMHD is not detention; only pretrial or probation-related constraints may not count as confinement.	EMHD does not constitute confinement; no jail time credit for EMHD.

State v. Dye, 2006-Ohio-5713 (Ohio Ct. App. Richland) (EMHD not confinement; house arrest while on bond not creditable)
State v. Faulkner, 102 Ohio App.3d 602 (1995) (pretrial confinement not jail time credit)
State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358, 819 N.E.2d 1047 (2004) (legislative history shows pretrial EMHD not detention)
State v. Bates, 2004-Ohio-6856 (Ohio Ct. App. Guernsey) (pretrial EMHD not credited as detention)
State v. Krouskoupf, 2006-Ohio-783 (Ohio Ct. App. Muskingum) (EMHD not confinement for credit purposes)
State v. Holmes, 2008-Ohio-6804 (Ohio Ct. App. Lucas) (distinguishes EMHD credit when on probation versus bail)
Gould, 2008-Ohio-900 (Ohio Ct. App.) (post-trial EMHD; distinguishable from pretrial EMHD)