State v. Cowan, 2014 Ohio 3593

In May 2011 Craig Cowan was indicted on multiple counts arising from an incident in which he held a gun to one victim’s head and shot at three others; at trial he was convicted on several counts and received an 18-year sentence that included consecutive terms.
This court affirmed convictions but vacated parts of the sentence and remanded for the trial court to consider and make findings for consecutive sentences under the law (Cowan I).
The trial court resentenced Cowan in February 2013 to the same 18-year consecutive sentence; this court reversed again for failure to strictly comply with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and ordered a de novo resentencing (Cowan II).
At a November 2013 de novo resentencing the trial court again imposed the same 18-year consecutive sentence; Cowan appealed.
Appellate counsel raised two assignments: (1) this court’s prior remand ordering further analysis/finding violated Cowan’s constitutional rights, and (2) trial court failed to properly impose/post and journalize postrelease control. Cowan (pro se) raised three additional claims challenging charge degree, double jeopardy, and proportionality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this court violated Cowan's rights by ordering the trial court to revisit consecutive-sentence findings	State: prior remand directing findings was proper and within appellate power	Cowan: remand ordering further findings violated Ohio and U.S. Constitutions	Overruled: issue barred by res judicata; Cowan had prior opportunity to challenge and earlier remedies were available
Whether the trial court properly imposed and journalized postrelease control at the November 2013 resentencing	State: postrelease control was properly a matter for the sentencing court on remand (implicit)	Cowan: trial court failed to notify and incorporate postrelease control at the de novo resentencing	Sustained: trial court made no mention of postrelease control at hearing or in entry; sentence is void in part and case remanded solely to advise and journalize postrelease control
Whether Cowan's pro se claims (degree reduction, double jeopardy, proportionality) are reviewable now	State: such claims could have been raised earlier on direct appeal	Cowan: raised as independent constitutional challenges	Overruled/barred: claims are barred by res judicata because they could have been raised in initial direct appeal

State v. Jordan, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (failure to properly notify defendant of postrelease control renders sentence void)
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (res judicata promotes finality and bars re-litigation of issues raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)