Court ruled jail time credit did not change when offender could apply for early release.

Court ruled jail time credit did not change when offender could apply for early release.

When an Ohio offender receives a mandatory prison term, jail-time credit cannot reduce the waiting period for the offender to apply for early judicial release, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed a Tenth District Court of Appeals decision, which allowed Aarin Clinkscale to apply for judicial release about 25 months earlier than permitted. Clinkscale spent 762 days in jail before he was sentenced to 14 years in prison in 2016. He sought to be released in 2022. Ohio’s judicial release statute — R.C. 2929.20 — gives trial judges some discretion to release prison inmates after serving a portion of their sentences.

Writing for the Court, Justice Joseph T. Deters explained that, when part of the sentence includes a mandatory term, no jail-time credit is factored into the waiting period provided for by the statute.

“Because Clinkscale was sentenced to both a mandatory prison term and nonmandatory prison terms, he was permitted to seek judicial release no earlier than five years after he completed his mandatory prison term,” Justice Deters stated.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion. Sixth District Court of Appeals Judge Thomas J. Osowik, sitting for Justice Jennifer Brunner, also joined the opinion.

Offender Seeks Early Release
In 2014, Clinkscale was indicted for his involvement in an armed robbery that led to the death of two people. He was incarcerated in a county jail until he pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

In November 2016, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison. His sentence included a three-year nonmandatory sentence for aggravated robbery and an eight-year nonmandatory sentence for the two involuntary manslaughter counts. He received a three-year mandatory sentence for the firearm specification, which had to be served before his nonmandatory prison terms. The trial court credited him with 762 days served in jail, which would reduce the overall 14 years in prison if he was required to serve his full sentence.

In June 2020, less than four years into his prison sentence, Clinkscale sought judicial release under R.C. 2929.20. Based on his jail-time credit, Clinkscale believed he served the time required before applying for early release.

The Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office objected. The prosecutor argued that because Clinkscale received a mandatory three-year sentence for using a firearm, he had to wait five years after serving his three-year mandatory term before he could apply for early release. At the time, the prosecutor added that even if jail-time credit was factored into the calculation, the earliest Clinkscale could apply was October 2022. The trial court denied Clinkscale’s early release request.

Clinkscale applied a second time in October 2022. The prosecutor’s office told the trial court it “mistakenly” believed Clinkscale’s jail-time credit could reduce the five-year waiting time following his three-year mandatory sentence. The trial court disagreed and granted Clinkscale’s release.

The prosecutor appealed to the Tenth District. Clinkscale argued to the Tenth District that denial of his release would violate his rights to equal protection under the law. The Tenth District affirmed the trial court’s decision to release Clinkscale.

The prosecutor appealed the Tenth District’s decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court Analyzed Relationship Between Release and Jail-Time Credit Laws
Justice Deters explained the time when an offender can seek release depends on the interplay between R.C. 2967.191 – the jail-time credit law – and R.C 2929.20 – the judicial release law. Under the jail-time credit law, an offender’s total number of days in prison can be reduced by the time in confinement while awaiting trial. The law does not shorten an offender’s sentence but gives credit for time served so the offender is not confined for more time than his sentence, the opinion explained.

The judicial release law allows the trial court to reduce the sentence of an eligible offender after the offender has served a certain amount of time in prison. The waiting periods to apply for judicial release vary depending on the total amount of nonmandatory prison time imposed at sentencing.

The disputed provision in this case is R.C. 2929.20(C)(1)(d), which the parties agreed applies to Clinkscale. The law states an offender can apply for judicial release if the offender “has served five years of the offender’s stated prison term or, if the prison term includes a mandatory prison term or terms, not earlier than five years after the expiration of all mandatory prison terms.”

Because the trial judge imposed a mandatory three-year prison term for the firearm specification, Clinkscale cannot apply for judicial release until five years after the firearm prison term is served, the Court wrote. Clinkscale was therefore not eligible to apply for early release until November 2024, the opinion noted.

Clinkscale argued both clauses in R.C. 2929.20(C)(1)(d) are “glued” together and reduce his application time. The first clause in R.C. 2929.20(C)(1)(d) applies to offenders whose sentences include only nonmandatory prison terms and requires an offender to wait to move for judicial release until he has served five years of his stated “prison term,” which includes jail-time credit.  Clinkscale argued that after he served his mandatory three years, his five-year waiting period was reduced by his 762 days of jail-time credit. That meant he served five years of his stated prison term in October 2022 and was eligible to apply then.

“But no amount of massaging can make the judicial-release statute read the way Clinkscale proposes,” the Court stated.

Rather than “glue” the provisions of the sentence together, the punctuation lawmakers used makes it clear there are two separate time requirements, the opinion stated. The reference to stated prison terms in the nonmandatory-terms clause, which Clinkscale cites, applies only to those with no mandatory terms, the Court ruled.

“In the mandatory-terms clause, the five-year waiting period is not tied to the offender’s stated prison term. Instead, it is tied to the length of time – five years – that has passed since the expiration of the offender’s mandatory prison term,” the Court stated. “Because the five-year waiting period is fixed, jail-time credit is irrelevant to the eligibility determination for such offenders.”

The Court remanded the case to the Tenth District to consider Clinkscale’s argument that he had been deprived of equal protection.

2024-0005. State v. Clinkscale, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2043.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.