State v. Smith, 2015 Ohio 4465

Brian K. Smith pled guilty in 2007 (07CR-3463) to breaking and entering and received three years of community control; in 2011 he pled guilty in 10CR-7194 to burglary and again received three years of community control.
In 2011 Smith violated community control in both matters; the court sentenced him to 9 months in prison for 07CR-3463 and a consecutive 4-year term for 10CR-7194, and he received 24 days of jail-time credit for those cases.
In 2015 Smith filed motions in both cases seeking 377 (later contested as 260) additional days of jail-time credit.
The trial court denied the motions on the merits and alternatively held res judicata barred relief.
On appeal the Tenth District affirmed, concluding res judicata applied and, alternatively, that Smith failed to carry his burden to show entitlement to additional credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Smith's post-sentencing motion for additional jail-time credit	State: res judicata applies to bar claims already or that could have been raised at sentencing	Smith: R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) allows a post-sentencing motion to correct jail-time credit and thus res judicata should not bar relief	Court: Res judicata bars the claim because Smith failed to show the issue was not raised at sentencing; R.C. 2929.19 exception did not apply
Whether Smith demonstrated entitlement to additional jail-time credit under R.C. 2967.191	State: Smith provided only conclusory allegations and no records tying confinement days to the offenses	Smith: He asserted specific additional days (260/377) he should receive as credit	Court: On the merits, Smith failed to meet his burden; record attachments lacked proof of days confined arising from the offenses, so denial was not an abuse of discretion