State v. Windsor, 2022 Ohio 1785

Defendant Dameon Windsor pled guilty on March 16, 2021 to one count of having weapons while under disability (third-degree felony).
Sentencing occurred April 1, 2021: trial court imposed 36 months plus a consecutive 27-month term for revoked post‑release control.
The sentencing entry awarded jail‑time credit only as “from February 12, 2021 until conveyance to [ODRC],” without specifying the total number of days.
Appellate counsel initially filed an Anders brief; this court rejected it, appointed new counsel, and identified the jail‑time credit calculation as an arguable issue.
The State conceded error on the jail‑time credit form; the court concluded the trial court erred by not specifying the total days and remanded for the trial court to fix the credit (the court noted Windsor’s calculation of 48 days from Feb. 12 to Apr. 1, 2021).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2949.08(B) by failing to specify total days of jail‑time credit	State conceded the entry was erroneous	Windsor argued the court should have calculated and specified the total days of credit as of sentencing (Feb 12–Apr 1 = 48 days)	Trial court erred; portion of judgment awarding credit reversed and remanded for the court to specify total days of jail‑time credit
Whether improper jail‑time credit calculation voids sentence or requires vacatur	State did not contend sentence was void	Windsor sought correction of the credit calculation	Court held an inaccurate credit determination does not void the sentence or render it finality‑defeating, but remand is appropriate here because defendant had no opportunity to be heard at sentencing on credit

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedure for appellate counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal lacks merit)