State v. Porter
106 N.E.3d 125
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Porter pled guilty to burglary and received a two-year prison sentence.
- After initial incarceration he was granted judicial release and placed on community control, which he later violated.
- The court imposed electronically‑monitored house arrest and a nightly curfew as more restrictive sanctions.
- Porter violated community control again (positive cocaine test); the court revoked community control and imposed the original two‑year prison term.
- The trial court awarded jail‑time credit including days under house arrest but excluding days subject to curfew.
- Both Porter and the State appealed: Porter argued house‑arrest-with‑curfew days should count; the State contended the house‑arrest days should not count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Porter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether days subject only to a curfew qualify as "confinement" for jail‑time credit | Curfew days do not constitute confinement | Curfew days should count as confinement | Curfew days are not "confined"; no credit allowed (trial court correct) |
| Whether days on electronically‑monitored house arrest qualify as "confinement" for jail‑time credit | House arrest is not equivalent to confinement; no credit should be given | House arrest fits statutory definition of "house arrest" as a period of confinement and should count | House arrest does not necessarily amount to confinement; credit for 96 days on house arrest was improper; remand to recalculate without house‑arrest days |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nagle, 23 Ohio St.3d 185 (defendant not entitled to credit for residential rehabilitation stay because he could leave of his own volition)
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (time at community‑based correctional facility counted as confinement where subject to staff control and restrictions on leaving)
- State v. Blankenship, 192 Ohio App.3d 639 (confinement requires inability to leave official custody of own volition)
- State v. Fillinger, 72 N.E.3d 671 (Madison Cty. decision holding house arrest can qualify as confinement; court here overruled to the extent it allowed credit)
- State v. Bowling, 88 N.E.3d 965 (curfew is ‘‘a requirement that an offender during a specified period of time be at a designated place’’ and does not constitute confinement)