State v. Ervin, 89 N.E.3d 1

Jody Ervin pleaded guilty in 2010 to two counts of complicity to felonious assault (second-degree felonies); one count included a firearm specification that carried a mandatory 3-year prison term.
The trial court imposed five years of community control on both complicity counts, to be served consecutive to and following the mandatory 3-year prison term for the firearm specification.
Ervin served the 3-year firearm term and began community control in December 2012; she incurred violations (including drug possession and heroin use) in 2015–2016.
In March 2016 the trial court found Ervin not amenable to community control, revoked community control, and imposed consecutive prison terms of 36 months on each complicity count (aggregate 72 months), consecutive to the earlier firearm term.
On appeal the court considered whether Ohio law authorizes a trial court to impose community control to commence upon completion of a prison term for another count, and whether such a "blended" or consecutive community-control-after-prison sentence is void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ervin)	Held
Whether trial court may impose prison sentence after community-control violation	Trial court properly exercised sentencing discretion to impose prison for violation	Ervin argued trial court erred in imposing prison (assignment 1)	Not reached as dispositive issue resolved: community-control portion unlawful; community-control revocation vacated and resentencing ordered on those counts
Whether trial court may impose consecutive prison terms	State supported consecutive terms as within sentencing discretion	Ervin argued consecutive sentences (aggregate 72 months) were improper (assignment 2)	Because underlying consecutive community-control-to-prison structure lacked statutory authority, consecutive terms imposed on revocation cannot stand; remanded for resentencing on complicity counts alone
Whether court may impose "blended" sentence (community control consecutive to prison)	State relied on R.C. 2929.13 discretion and prior appellate decisions permitting consecutive community control	Ervin argued no statutory authority exists to impose community control to be served following a prison term (assignment 3)	Held for Ervin: Ohio statutes do not authorize community-control sanctions to be served consecutive to a prison term except limited OVI provision; the blended sentence was unauthorized, community-control sanctions void, revocation and sentence vacated, remanded for resentencing on those counts

State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (2015) (Ohio Supreme Court: sentencing is statutory; courts lack inherent authority to create sentences beyond statutory grants)
State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012) (discussion of the nature of a sentence as penalty or combination of penalties)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (judicial sentencing power is limited to what statute authorizes)
Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 (2000) (on limits of judicial sentencing authority)
State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (only statutory sentences may be imposed by trial courts)