Does the time held in jail before a conviction count toward a prison sentence?

Does the time held in jail before a conviction count toward a prison sentence?

An inmate serving 25 years who was held in jail for 87 days before being indicted has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court arguing his prison sentence should be reduced for the earlier confinement. The Supreme Court will hear his claims, along with three other cases, on Tuesday, Sept. 15 during oral arguments in Columbus.

While being investigated on possible charges, Lowell W. Thompson was detained in a Franklin County jail for almost three months. After a Madison County grand jury indicted Thompson for sex offenses in July 2010, he was transferred there and held for an additional 180-plus days.

Thompson then pled guilty to the charges and received a 25-year prison sentence. The trial court gave him credit in 2011 for the jail time in Madison County before his plea, but did not subtract the 87 days spent in the Franklin County facility. In February 2014, Thompson asked the court to count the time served in Franklin County against his sentence. The trial court rejected the motion. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals later concluded that Thompson didn’t have the right to appeal the denied request.

Law Allows Adjustments for Time Served
Thompson points out that a state law, effective in September 2012, permits defendants to ask for corrections to jail-time credits. Before the legislation, defendants had no way to fix these errors. He argues a trial court’s denial of a motion based on the 2012 law to adjust jail-time credit is an order that can be contested to a higher court. He also asserts he has a constitutional right to have all the days he spent in confinement counted as part of his prison time.

State Notes Legislation Took Effect After Thompson’s Sentencing
While the Madison County Prosecutor’s Office has decided not to participate in oral arguments, it stressed in the brief filed with the court that Thompson was sentenced more than a year before the 2012 law took effect and contended the legislation doesn’t apply to Thompson.

Oral Arguments
The Supreme Court’s Columbus session on Sept. 15 will begin at 9 a.m. at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center. The arguments will be streamed live online at sc.ohio.gov and broadcast live on The Ohio Channel. The court will hold off-site oral arguments in Sandusky County on Wednesday, Sept. 16. Those cases will be featured Monday on CourtNewsOhio.gov.

Previews Available
The Office of Public Information today released in-depth previews of Thompson v. State and the three other cases before the court on Tuesday. Brief highlights of the appeals are also provided below.

Tuesday, Sept. 15 Cases

• Ohio homeowners filed a class-action lawsuit in 2003 against federal lender Fannie Mae for damages, claiming the organization didn’t submit notice of their paid-off mortgages to a county office within 90 days, as required by state law. In Federal National Mortgage Association v. Radatz, Fannie Mae maintains it is prohibited by its regulatory agency from paying any fines or penalties in this case. The lender also argues that Congress banned any court, including the Cuyahoga County trial and appeals courts, from reviewing orders issued by the regulatory agency.
• In 2010, the Pike County auditor in Wheeler v. Testa informed the private operator of a Portsmouth uranium-enrichment plant that it owed $7.5 million in personal property taxes, plus more than $15 million in penalties and interest, for tax year 1993. The state tax commissioner and tax appeals board overturned the assessment, but didn’t address whether the auditor had acted in bad faith or frivolously – which would have enabled the plant operator to seek more than $1 million in attorney fees. The company contends a bad-faith ruling was warranted because the auditor knew the assessment violated an agreement letting the federal government, which owns the property where the plant is located, to pay an amount to the county in lieu of the taxes.
• The professional conduct board in Columbus Bar Association v. Reed found a Columbus attorney neglected three cases and didn’t respond to inquiries from disciplinary authorities. The board recommends that the lawyer pay restitution to the clients and serve a two-year suspension with six months stayed. The attorney disputes that he acted dishonestly or selfishly and wasn’t cooperative in the disciplinary process. He maintains he had health issues at the time and argues his neglect of these three clients represent very few in a decades-long career.