State v. Bell (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7561

The Ohio Supreme Court considered multiple consolidated appeals from the Eighth District Court of Appeals challenging sentencing decisions.
Each appellate judgment was reviewed in light of this court’s decision in State v. Thomas (2016-Ohio-5567), which addressed application of sentencing law.
The Supreme Court affirmed the courts of appeals in a series of cases (listed by docket), holding they were controlled by the Thomas decision.
Five justices concurred in affirming; two justices (O’Donnell and Kennedy) dissented, arguing the trial-court sentences should be reinstated or defendants resentenced under the law in effect at the time of the offenses.
The opinions collectively resolved whether the lower-court sentences should stand under the controlling precedent established in Thomas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate judgments should be affirmed under State v. Thomas	The State: Thomas controls and mandates affirmance of the appeals	Defendants: Thomas should not control; trial sentences should be reinstated or resentenced under older law	Affirmed — courts of appeals judgments upheld on authority of State v. Thomas
Retroactive application of sentencing rules	The State: Thomas applies to these cases as controlling precedent	Defendants: Applying Thomas retroactively violates their rights; sentencing should follow law at offense time	Held for the State — Thomas governs these appeals
Proper remedy for alleged sentencing error	The State: No relief; affirm appellate judgments	Defendants: Reverse and remand to trial courts for sentences under prior law	Affirmed — no remand; appellate judgments stand per Thomas
Effect of dissenting justices' view	N/A (majority)	Dissent: reinstate trial-court sentences or remand to apply law in effect at offense	Dissent noted but majority opinion controls and affirms the courts of appeals

State v. Thomas, Ohio St.3d (2016) (controlling decision regarding the sentencing issue that governed these appeals)