State v. Conn, 2016 Ohio 1001

Anthony Conn was indicted for multiple steroid-related offenses; he pled guilty to several counts including trafficking, illegal manufacture, and child endangering.
On March 24, 2014 the trial court sentenced Conn to an aggregate prison term of five years, three of which were mandatory, via a mix of consecutive and concurrent terms.
This court (Conn I) affirmed individual prison terms but vacated the imposition of consecutive sentences because the trial court failed to make findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and remanded for resentencing limited to that issue.
On remand a different judge held a de novo resentencing, modified several individual terms, and imposed a four-year aggregate mandatory sentence.
The appellate court held the resentencing exceeded the scope of the limited remand (law of the case), vacated the July 1, 2015 sentence, reinstated the original individual terms (except consecutive sentences), and remanded for resentencing limited to whether consecutive terms are appropriate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court exceeded scope of limited remand by conducting de novo resentencing	State: resentencing was proper (implicitly allowing correction)	Conn: remand was limited; court exceeded mandate by modifying individual terms	Court: Trial court erred; remand limited to consecutive-sentence findings only
Whether the modified individual sentences on remand are valid	State: modifications stand	Conn: modifications increased sentence beyond remand scope	Court: Modifications invalid; original individual terms remain in effect
Whether resentencing created a presumption of vindictiveness (due process)	State: no vindictiveness shown	Conn: resentencing was vindictive and harsher due to appeal	Court: No presumption (different judge); appellant failed to show actual vindictiveness
Proper remedy and scope for further proceedings	State: allow resentencing as imposed	Conn: limit resentencing to consecutive-issue only	Court: Vacate July 1, 2015 sentence; remand for limited resentencing on consecutive sentences with statutory findings required

Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (establishes law-of-the-case doctrine)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (Ohio 2011) (limits scope of resentencing to errors identified on appeal)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2006) (restrictions on de novo resentencing following limited remand)
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (due process prohibits vindictive resentencing)
Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1989) (presumption of vindictiveness requires reasonable likelihood shown)
Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1986) (no presumption of vindictiveness when different judge resentences)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (requires trial court to make statutory findings on record for consecutive sentences)