State v. Hartman, 2012 Ohio 874

Hartman was indicted on six counts of retaliation under R.C. 2921.05(A).
He pled guilty to five counts; the sixth was dismissed.
The trial court sentenced him to four years on each of counts I–V, totaling twenty years.
The court reserved sixteen years on counts II–V and imposed community control, to be served during imprisonment.
The court’s order stated the community control would be revoked if Hartman violated it, adding the reserved sixteen years to his sentence.
Hartman appeals, arguing that sentencing a defendant to both prison and community control is prohibited by the Ohio felony sentencing guidelines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing a defendant to both prison and community control is lawful	Hartman argues dual prison/community control sentencing is prohibited	State argues the court may impose community control as a condition	Sentence is contrary to law; dual sentencing not permitted; remand for re-sentencing

State v. Vlad, 153 Ohio App.3d 74 (2003-Ohio-2930) (dual sentence prohibited after S.B. 2)
State v. Hoy, 3d Dist. Nos. 14-04-13, 14-04-14 (2005-Ohio-1093) (no provision to suspend prison term and impose community control)
State v. Riley, 3d Dist. No. 14-98-38 (1998) (no suspension with community control as condition of sentence)
State v. Williams, 3d Dist. No. 5-10-02 (2011-Ohio-995) (community control and prison terms are mutually exclusive per statute)
State v. Randolph, 12th Dist. No. CA2003-10-262 (2004-Ohio-3350) (statutory exclusivity of prison vs. community control)
State v. Daughenbaugh, 3d Dist. No. 16-07-07 (2007-Ohio-5774) (meaningful review permits vacating/remanding when sentence not supported)
State v. Carter, 11th Dist. No. 2003-P-0007 (2004-Ohio-1181) (standard for meaningful review of felony sentence)