COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 70210
JACKIE ADKINS                 :
                              :
        Relator               :     PETITION FOR WRIT OF 
                              :        HABEAS CORPUS
     -vs-                     : 
                              :
GERALD T. MCFAUL, SHERIFF,    :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY               :
1215 West Third Street        :
Cleveland, OH 44113           :
                              : 
        Respondent            :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT          :       MARCH 15, 1996
  OF DECISION                 :                        
JUDGMENT                      :    DISMISSED
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :                        
APPEARANCES:
For relator:                  For respondent:
PAUL MANCINO, JR., ESQ.       STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ.
75 Public Square, #1016       Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Cleveland, OH 44113-2098      8th Floor - The Justice Center
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, OH 44113
                               - 2 -
PATTON, J.
     Relator,  Jackie   Adkins,  seeks  an  immediate  release  and
discharge from  the custody  of the  respondent, Gerald T.  McFaul,
Cuyahoga County Sheriff,  through a petition  for a writ of  habeas
corpus.  Relator  argues that he is  entitled to a thirty  (30) per
cent diminution of  sentence pursuant to  R.C. 2967.19(A) and  thus
his sentence of incarceration of  one year, which began on June  7,
1995, has been  completed.   Sua sponte, we  dismiss the  relator's
petition for a  writ of  habeas corpus  since it fails  to state  a
claim upon  which relief can be granted.   State ex rel. Peeples v.
Anderson (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 559.
     In  Cuyahoga  County  Common  Pleas  Case No.  CR-299138,  the
relator  was convicted of  the offenses  of vehicular  homicide and
driving while  under the  influence of  alcohol.   The trial  court
sentenced the relator  to incarceration within the  Cuyahoga County
Jail  for a  term of  six  months as  to each  offense  and further
ordered that the sentences of incarceration run consecutive to each
other.   Relator now  argues that  he should  receive a  "good time
credit" for time served  in the Cuyahoga County Jail  and should be
immediately released from jail.
     This  court, in State ex rel.  Terkel v. Court of Common Pleas
Cuyahoga County (July 12, 1994),  Cuy. App. No. 66545,  unreported,
established that  "good time credit" pursuant to R.C. 2967.19(A) is
not applicable to  an individual  who is incarcerated  in a  county
jail.
                               - 3 -
         "R.C. 2967.19 regulates the crediting of good time in
     Ohio  and provides  that 'a  person confined  in a  state
     penal or reformatory institution is  entitled to a deduc-
     tion from his minimum or definite sentence of  thirty per
     cent of sentence, prorated for each month of the sentence
     during which he  faithfully has observed the rules of the
     institution.' R.C.  2967.01 defines 'State  penal or  re-
     formatory  institution'  by listing  several institutions
     and then adding 'any other unit within the department  of
     rehabilitation and correction  that is used for  custody,
     care, or  treatment of  criminal, delinquent, or  psycho-
     pathic offenders.'  The county jail  does not come within
     this definition.  Mr. Terkel cited no statutory  or regu-
     latory authority allowing  for good time credit  for time
     spent in the  county jail,  and this court  did not  find
     such statutory or regulatory authority.
          "Additionally, the  United States  Supreme Court  in
     McGinnis v. Royster (1973), 410 U.S. 263, 35 L.Ed.2d 282,
     93  S.Ct.  1055,  held  that  equal protection  does  not
     require  states  to credit  good time  for time  spent in
     county jails.  The Court reasoned:
          "'[I]n a county  jail ***  no systematic  reha-
          bilitative   programs   exist   and   ***   the
          prisoner's conduct and performance are not even
          observed and evaluated by the responsible state
          prison officials.   ***  In short, an inmate in
          county jail is neither under the supervision of
          the    State    Correction    Department    nor
          participating  in  the  State's  rehabilitative
          programs.    Where  there is  no  evaluation by
          state  officials  and  little  or no  rehabili-
          tative  participation  for anyone  to evaluate,
          there is rational  justification for  declining
          to give good-time credit.'  Id.  at 1061.
     "Accordingly, this court  holds that good time  credit is
     not given for jail  time in Ohio. [Footnote  2 omitted]."
     Id.  at 5-6.
     Herein, the relator is not entitled  to any "good time credit"
per R.C. 2967.19(A)  for time served  in the Cuyahoga County  Jail.
The relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
                               - 4 -
     Accordingly, we dismiss the  relator's petition for a writ  of
habeas corpus.  Relator to bear costs.
NAHRA, P.J.           
KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR.                                          
                                               JUDGE
                                            JOHN T. PATTON
.