State v. Watters, 2015 Ohio 5473

Charles K. Watters was indicted in 2013 for having a weapon while under disability (third-degree felony) and improperly handling a firearm (fourth-degree felony); the latter was nolled when he pled guilty to WUD.
At plea/sentencing the trial court addressed multiple pending matters (probation revocations in three other case numbers) and announced it would terminate those probations as unsuccessful.
The court expressly allocated jail-time credit to the probation-revocation cases (5, 173, and 141 days respectively) and stated it would give zero days’ credit to the 24-month WUD sentence, telling Watters it had “burned your jail credit on all the other cases.”
The written judgment entry for the WUD case recorded zero days’ jail-time credit but allowed credit for additional time served awaiting transport to prison.
Watters later filed a pro se motion to reduce his prison term, seeking 153 days’ additional credit based on R.C. 2967.191 and State v. Fugate; the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal the Tenth District affirmed, holding Watters’s claim was barred by res judicata because the jail-credit issue had been raised and decided at sentencing (so the statutory post-sentencing correction provision did not apply).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Watters is entitled to apply jail-time credit from other concurrent cases to his 24-month WUD sentence	State: res judicata bars relitigation because issue was raised and decided at sentencing; statutory post-sentencing remedy in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) does not apply	Watters: Fugate and R.C. 2967.191 require that jail-time credit be applied toward each concurrent prison term, so he should receive 153 additional days on the WUD sentence	Court held res judicata bars the claim because the jail-credit allocation was raised and addressed at sentencing; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) does not permit post-sentencing correction where the issue was already raised at sentencing; therefore no additional credit awarded

State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (Ohio 2008) (when defendant receives concurrent prison terms, jail-time credit under R.C. 2967.191 must be applied toward each concurrent term)