State v. Hach, 2014 Ohio 5113

Thomas Hach was convicted by a jury in 1999 of multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Over time the trial court entered multiple nunc pro tunc corrections to the original sentencing entry; in 2013 Hach sought a consolidated journal entry reflecting those corrections.
This court held the post-release control portion of the consolidated entry void because it mistakenly labeled a five-year term as discretionary, and remanded for a limited resentencing solely to impose proper post-release control.
On remand the trial court set a video-conference resentencing; Hach sought to be conveyed to the county jail to appear in person, but the court denied conveyance and proceeded by video, imposing the mandatory five-year post-release control term.
Hach appealed, raising (1) denial of his right to be physically present at the resentencing and (2) multiple unrelated challenges to allied-offense and consecutive-sentencing matters.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found any error from video conferencing harmless given the limited scope of the hearing, and held Hach could not raise unrelated sentencing issues on remand (res judicata / limited scope of resentencing).

Issue	Hach's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether conducting the limited resentencing by video conference without Hach physically present (over his objection) violated Crim.R. 43 / Sixth Amendment	Denial of right to be present; video-conference resentencing unconstitutional without waiver	Video participation was permissible here; any procedural error was harmless because hearing was limited and outcome inevitable	Any failure to obtain a physical-presence waiver was harmless; no reversible error
Whether Hach could raise claims about allied offenses, consecutive sentences, and double jeopardy at the limited resentencing	Argued trial court improperly sentenced on allied/offense and consecutive-sentence grounds; sought relief on those issues	Remand was limited to correcting post-release control only; unrelated issues unavailable on remand	Court lacked authority to address those claims on remand; such issues are barred (res judicata)

State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2008) (defendant has right to be present at critical stages)
State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (Ohio 2007) (absence does not automatically produce constitutional error)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (scope of appeal from resentencing limited to issues arising at resentencing)