State v. Baker, 2018 Ohio 4027

Michael Baker pled guilty in 2012 to two fifth‑degree felonies and, in 2016, to a fourth‑degree felony plus two misdemeanors; he was placed on community control in each case.
On December 14, 2017, the trial court found Baker violated community control in all three cases and sentenced him to 90 days imprisonment for each felony violation, ordered to run consecutively (total 270 days).
The trial court announced restitution at sentencing but initially failed to include amounts in the journal entries.
This court sua sponte remanded for nunc pro tunc entries; the trial court later journalized restitution totaling $89,464.45 for the two 2011 cases.
Baker appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) improper consecutive sentences; (2) sentence duration violates statutory limits; and (3) restitution amount/journal entry error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Baker)	Held
Whether consecutive 90‑day terms were properly imposed	Court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing	Court failed to incorporate findings in journal entry	Findings were made at sentencing but not journalized; remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate findings
Whether aggregate 270‑day sentence violates new statutory caps	Each 90‑day term for a community‑control violation is within statutory range	HB‑49’s caps on 4th/5th‑degree felonies make the aggregate 270 days unlawful	Each individual 90‑day term is lawful; consecutive imposition not per se unlawful; assignment overruled
Whether R.C. 2929.14(A)(5) required different treatment/uniformity	Sentence under R.C. 2929.15(B) governs community‑control violations	Court should have applied basic term rules for fifth‑degree felonies	R.C. 2929.14(A)(5) inapplicable to community‑control violation penalties; argument rejected
Whether restitution was properly imposed and reflected in journal	Restitution was ordered at sentencing; clerical omission in journal corrected on remand	Journal initially showed no amount; claimed error	Nunc pro tunc entries fixed the omission; $89,464.45 is the proper restitution amount in the record

State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them into the entry; clerical omissions can be corrected nunc pro tunc)
State v. Hairston, 888 N.E.2d 1073 (Ohio 2008) (no constitutional right to concurrent sentences; consecutive sentences not rendered disproportionate solely by aggregation)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard: reversal only if record clearly and convincingly fails to support R.C. 2929 findings or sentence is otherwise contrary to law)
Schenley v. Kauth, 113 N.E.2d 625 (Ohio 1953) (a court speaks through its journal entries; oral pronouncements alone are insufficient)