State v. Hitchcock, 2017 Ohio 8255

Hitchcock engaged in a sexual relationship with a neighborhood girl that began when she was 13 and continued until she was 15; she became pregnant and delivered a stillborn, and DNA linked Hitchcock as the father.
Hitchcock was indicted on four counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (third-degree felonies) and one count of endangering children (misdemeanor); he pled guilty to three felony counts and the remaining counts were dismissed.
Trial court sentenced Hitchcock to two consecutive 60-month prison terms and a five-year term of community control on the third count, with the community control to commence after release.
Hitchcock appealed, arguing (1) the court lacked authority to impose community control consecutive to prison and (2) the record did not support imposition of maximum and consecutive sentences.
The Fifth District affirmed, rejecting the county’s challenge to consecutive community control/prison sequencing and finding the trial court’s findings supporting maximum and consecutive terms were supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may impose a community-control sanction to commence after a prison term (i.e., effectively consecutive to prison)	State: Court has discretion under R.C. 2929.13(A) to impose any combination of sanctions, including prison for one offense and community control for another, which necessarily begins after release	Hitchcock: R.C. 2929.41 and subsequent authority prohibit imposing community control consecutive to prison; community control cannot be ordered to run consecutively to imprisonment	Court: Affirmed discretion to impose community control that necessarily follows prison; language of "consecutive" is superfluous; sentence authorized and valid
Whether the record supports imposition of maximum and consecutive prison terms under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: Trial court made required findings (protect public, punish, not disproportionate; offenses part of multi-course conduct; prior record) and considered R.C. 2929.11–.12 factors	Hitchcock: Record does not support maximum/consecutive findings; he showed remorse and had no recent felony convictions	Court: Findings were supported by record (longstanding sexual relationship, pregnancy/stillbirth, prior convictions and revoked community control); consecutive and maximum sentences affirmed

State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 35 N.E.3d 512 (Ohio 2015) (Ohio Supreme Court held courts limited to statutory-authorized sentences and invalidated certain community-control no-contact orders paired with prison on same count)
State v. Barnhouse, 102 Ohio St.3d 221, 808 N.E.2d 874 (Ohio 2004) (narrowly addressed whether courts may impose consecutive jail sentences under R.C. 2929.16)
State v. Anderson (Cuyahoga Cty.), 62 N.E.3d 229 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (Eighth Dist.) (en banc holding no statutory authority to impose prison consecutive to community control; vacated community control)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review for felony sentencing appeals under R.C. 2953.08)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)