State v. Hawk, 2011 Ohio 4577

Hawk pled guilty to two first-degree rape counts; original January 3, 2001 sentencing imposed an indeterminate eight to twenty-five year term on count one and six years on count two, plus court costs, with no specific post-release control term.
On June 4, 2010 Hawk moved for re-sentencing under Singleton; after reconsideration, a hearing was held October 22, 2010 described as de novo sentencing, resulting in the same sentence plus a mandatory five-year post-release control term.
The October 26, 2010 judgment entry properly imposed the five-year post-release control term, but the transcript notes that court costs were said to be imposed at the de novo hearing.
The re-sentencing entry referenced de novo proceedings and did not clearly notify Hawk of R.C. 2947.23 community service consequences, raising statutory notice concerns.
This court vacated the costs portion of the re-sentencing entry and remanded for re-sentencing on costs; it also instructed on remand to delete the de novo reference, mirror the original sentence aside from post-release notifications, and add proper cost and community service notifications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether costs were proper without 2947.23 notice	Hawk argues lack of mandatory 2947.23 community service notice.	State concedes error and seeks vacatur/remand for proper notice.	Costs portion vacated/remanded for proper 2947.23 notices.

State v. Moss, 186 Ohio App.3d 787 (2010-Ohio-1135) (mandatory community service notification reviewable on appeal)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (remand limited to proper post-release control notification after Fischer; no de novo required)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step review for legality of sentences)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (Bezak framework for remand and re-sentencing procedures)