State v. Hedges, 2020 Ohio 4528

In 2018 (Case No. 18-CR-000270) Hedges pleaded guilty to aggravated possession of drugs (felony 3) and improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle (misdemeanor 1) and was given a blanket two-year term of community control (a sentencing “package”).
Probation discovered drugs, paraphernalia, firearms, and cash at Hedges’ home; search revealed 190.64 g methamphetamine, 48 squares of LSD, firearms, and $2,105; Hedges admitted meth use and tested positive.
Hedges pled guilty to violating community control; the court revoked community control and imposed an 18-month prison term for the violation.
In 2019 (Case No. 19-CR-000333) Hedges pled guilty to possession of drugs (felony 3) and having weapons while under disability (felony 3) with forfeiture specifications; the court sentenced him to 30 months on each count, to run consecutively (60 months), ordered consecutive to the 18-month 2018 sentence for a 78-month total.
Hedges appealed, arguing (1) the 2018 sentencing package was void so the 2019 sentences could not run consecutively to it, and (2) the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences in 2019 was not supported by the record.
The court affirmed: it held the 2018 sentencing-package error was voidable (not void) and barred by res judicata because not raised on direct appeal, and it found the record supports consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hedges)	Held
Whether the 2018 sentencing-package error rendered the 2018 sentence void so it cannot support consecutive sentencing	The state concedes a sentencing-package error but contends the error is voidable, correctable, and Hedges is barred by res judicata from collateral attack	The sentencing package made the 2018 sentence void; a void sentence cannot support consecutive sentencing in the 2019 case	The error is voidable under Ohio Supreme Court precedent realigned in Harper; Hedges’ collateral attack is barred by res judicata; revocation and imposition of 18 months cured the package issue
Whether consecutive sentences in the 2019 case were supported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Consecutive terms necessary to protect the public and punish given large quantity of drugs, firearms while under disability, and recent similar conviction	Consecutive sentences are disproportional: nonviolent offenses, mitigating life events, cooperation, no evidence firearms were used, and no prior prison sentences	Court found statutory findings satisfied (danger to public, not disproportionate, offender committed offenses while under sanction and has criminal history); consecutive sentences affirmed

State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (sentencing packages are impermissible)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (prior Ohio jurisprudence on void/voidable sentencing errors)
State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103 (2012) (treatment of certain sentencing errors as void in prior caselaw)
State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (older Ohio precedent addressing voidness of sentences)
Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (errors in exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction render judgments voidable)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (voidable judgments generally must be challenged on direct appeal)
State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 (2019) (standard of review for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))