State v. Greene, 2018 Ohio 3135

Reginald L. Greene pled guilty to two separate 26-week child-support nonpayment offenses (05CR-5445 and 07CR-7093) and received five-year community-control terms.
On the same day he was sentenced in 07CR-7093, Greene also received a 3-year prison term in an unrelated cocaine case (07CR-6580); the trial court announced it would suspend (delay) the community-control terms in the child-support cases until Greene completed the cocaine sentence.
The trial court entered formal orders suspending and later reactivating the two community-control terms after Greene’s release; Greene did not appeal those original sentencing or reactivation entries.
In 2017 the probation department moved to revoke Greene’s community control; Greene admitted violations and at the August 25, 2017 revocation hearing the court orally stated it would impose 12-month prison terms "concurrent with each other" but consecutive to a Scioto County sentence.
The written revocation entries, however, imposed the two 12-month terms consecutively to each other and to the Scioto County sentence.
Greene appealed, arguing (1) the consecutive sentences were invalid because the court failed to make the oral findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and (2) the original 07CR-7093 community-control term was void because it was suspended to commence after completion of the cocaine prison term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars challenge to suspension/reactivation of the 07CR-7093 community-control term	State: Greene knew of the court's suspension at original sentencing and could have appealed then, so res judicata bars relitigation	Greene: The 07CR-7093 term could not be tolled because it was imposed the same day as the cocaine prison term; suspension was improper	Court: Res judicata bars the challenge to the original suspension/reactivation because Greene could have raised it on direct appeal
Whether the trial court lawfully imposed consecutive sentences at revocation without R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	State: Any omission was forfeited by lack of objection and reviewable only for plain error	Greene: The court failed to make the required statutory oral findings, so consecutive sentences are contrary to law	Court: The error is plain; court failed to make required oral R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, so consecutive sentences cannot stand; remand for resentencing

State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171 (Ohio 2014) (res judicata bars issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (same principle on preclusion of issues in criminal cases)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (plain-error review for failure to meet statutory sentencing requirements)