State v. White, 2016 Ohio 5878

David White was arrested in two separate Clermont County cases: heroin possession (Dec 2014) and rape (Oct 2015). He had intermittent periods of pretrial incarceration in the county jail for both matters.
In the heroin case White served 73 days in jail before obtaining Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC) and release on March 2, 2015. In the rape case he served 63 days by the December 9, 2015 hearing.
On December 9, 2015 the trial court found White violated ILC, sentenced him to 8 years (rape) and 12 months (heroin), to run concurrently, and initially awarded 63 days credit in the rape case and 73 days in the heroin case but said only 63 days could be applied to both sentences.
The court reconvened on December 17, 2015, and entered judgments stating (1) 63 days credit in the rape case and (2) 136 days credit in the heroin case; the entries used the phrase "as of and including the last date of sentencing." The entries did not explicitly account for the 8 days between Dec. 9 and Dec. 17.
White appealed, arguing the court failed to credit him for an additional 8 days he spent in custody between the two sentencing hearings (total owed: 144 days). The state agreed an additional 8 days were owed but argued the entries could be read to include them or this court could modify the entries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (White)	Held
Whether the trial court failed to award all jail-time credit (the 8 days between Dec. 9 and Dec. 17)	The entries can be read to give the additional 8 days or this court may modify the entries to clarify credit	Trial court failed to award the extra 8 days; remand required to amend entries to reflect full credit	The entries are ambiguous; plain error exists. White is entitled to the additional 8 days, for a total of 144 days; case remanded for the limited purpose of amending the sentencing entries.
Whether concurrent sentences require jail-time credit applied to each concurrent term	(implicit) concurrent terms may be read to allow credit as intended by court	Fugate requires credit be applied to each concurrent term; White entitled to credit on both sentences	Fugate controls: jail-time credit must be applied to each concurrent term; court must specify amount in entries.

State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (2008) (when concurrent prison terms are imposed, jail-time credit must be applied toward each concurrent term)
State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d 476 (2003) (trial court must determine and include number of days of confinement to be credited in the sentencing entry)