State v. Fizer, 2016 Ohio 8384

Adam J. Fizer was indicted on multiple counts of receiving stolen property (one fifth-degree felony and several first-degree misdemeanors) after police recovered stolen items from his home and storage unit.
Fizer pleaded no contest to one felony count and three misdemeanor counts; remaining counts were dismissed per plea agreement.
At sentencing the trial court ordered 180 days on each misdemeanor to run consecutively (total 540 days) and an 11-month prison term on the felony, stating the felony would "begin upon completion" of the misdemeanor jail term.
The trial court also ordered all sentences to run consecutively to any sentence imposed in two pending external cases (Wood County and Michigan).
Fizer appealed, arguing the misdemeanor jail terms must run concurrently with the felony prison term, the felony could not be stayed until completion of the misdemeanors, and the court lacked authority to order consecutivity to future sentences.
The State agreed on appeal that the trial court’s order was unlawful; the appellate court reversed and modified the sentencing entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether misdemeanor jail terms may be ordered consecutive to a felony prison term	Fizer: Misdemeanor terms must run concurrently with the felony under R.C. 2929.41(A)	State: Agreed with Fizer that concurrent service is required absent statutory exception	Court: Ordered misdemeanor sentences to be served concurrently with the felony (trial court erred in imposing consecutively)
Whether the trial court could delay execution of the felony sentence until misdemeanor completion	Fizer: Court improperly stayed execution of the felony sentence	State: Agreed the felony must be carried into execution immediately	Court: Held the felony sentence must be carried into execution immediately; trial court erred in staying it
Whether a court may order a sentence to run consecutively to future, not-yet-imposed sentences in other pending cases	Fizer: Trial court exceeded authority by ordering consecutivity to future sentences	State: Agreed such an order is improper	Court: Held ordering consecutivity to future sentences is unlawful and deleted that directive from the entry

State v. Polus, 48 N.E.3d 553 (Ohio 2016) (R.C. 2929.41(A) requires misdemeanor jail terms to run concurrently with felony prison terms except narrow statutory exceptions)
State v. White, 481 N.E.2d 596 (Ohio 1985) (trial court may not order a sentence to run consecutively to a future sentence to be imposed)
State v. Kraguljac, 530 N.E.2d 970 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (trial court lacks authority to suspend execution of a sentence absent an appeal)