State v. Bunting, 2012 Ohio 445

Bunting pleaded guilty to seven counts of aggravated robbery in 1996, receiving an aggregate sentence of 16–50 years for six pre-Senate Bill 2 counts and 9 years consecutive for the post-SB2 count, with improper imposition of post-release control.
In 2010, Bunting moved for re-sentencing based on post-release control issues and sought a de novo re-sentencing for prison terms and post-release control; the trial court denied.
On April 1, 2011, a re-sentencing hearing was held by video link; Bunting objected to video appearance and requested physical presence, later filing a written objection.
The May 11, 2011 hearing overruled the objections; the court advised on post-release control during the video proceeding.
Bunting filed a timely pro se notice of appeal on May 20, 2011, which was dismissed; a second notice of appeal was filed July 7, 2011 through counsel.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court, concluding no de novo re-sentencing was required and any video-conferencing error was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a de novo re-sentencing was required.	Bunting argued for de novo sentencing under Singleton due to faulty post-release control.	Bezak/Fischer framing allows correction of post-release control issues without a de novo hearing when applicable.	No de novo re-sentencing required; Fischer limited remedy to correcting post-release control, not full de novo resentencing.
Whether video-conferencing at re-sentencing violated presence rights.	Bunting contends absence in courtroom during re-sentencing violated rights.	The video proceeding was permissible under then-existing authority and later cases; any error was harmless.	Any video-conferencing error was harmless; presence rights were not violated in a way affecting substantial rights.

State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (re-sentencing framework for post-release-control imposition)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (retroactive application of 2929.191 and de novo remedy prior to SB2)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (post-release-control issues are void only to the extent required; de novo limited to proper imposition of post-release control)
State v. Dunivent, 2011-Ohio-6874 (Stark App. No. 2011-CA-00160) (video-re-sentencing presence error deemed harmless; plain-error review in absence of prejudice)
State v. Mullins, 2011-Ohio-1256 (Franklin App. No. 09AP-1185) (video-conference at sentencing reviewed for harmless error)