State v. Hitchcock (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 3246

Defendant Jeffery Hitchcock pleaded guilty to three counts of third-degree unlawful sexual conduct with a minor; two counts received five-year prison terms to run consecutively and the third received a five-year community-control sanction.
The trial court ordered the community-control sanction to be served consecutively to the two prison terms and reserved authority to impose an additional consecutive five-year prison term upon violation; it also ordered Hitchcock to be assessed for possible placement in a community-based correctional facility (CBCF).
Hitchcock appealed, arguing the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose community-control sanctions consecutively to prison terms and to order post-prison CBCF placement.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed and certified a conflict with other districts on whether a court may impose residential or nonresidential community control to run consecutively to imprisonment on another count.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the case after State v. Paige and concluded (1) under Paige a CBCF placement/assessment after completion of a prison term is unauthorized, and (2) unless a statute authorizes it, community-control sanctions for one felony may not be ordered to run consecutively to a prison term imposed for another felony; the Court reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hitchcock)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether a trial court may impose community-control sanctions on one felony count to be served consecutively to a prison term on another felony count	No — only statutes authorize sentences; no statute allows community control to run consecutively to a separate prison term	Yes — R.C. 2929.13(A) gives broad discretion to impose any sanction or combination of sanctions, and nothing expressly prohibits consecutive community-control	Held: No — absent express statutory authorization, community-control sanctions for one felony may not be ordered to run consecutively to a prison term on another felony count
Whether the trial court could order assessment/placement in a CBCF to occur after completion of separate prison terms	Paige controls — CBCF placement as part of community control after prison is unauthorized	Trial court complied with consecutive-prison findings; assessment was proper	Held: Under Paige, CBCF placement/assessment to occur after separate prison term is unauthorized and must be vacated

State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214 (2018) (holds CBCF confinement is a "sentence of imprisonment" and a court may not order CBCF placement as a community-control sanction to run consecutively to a separate prison term absent statutory exception)
State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (2015) (explains courts may impose only sentences authorized by statute; S.B. 2 restructured Ohio sentencing)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (a judge must consider each offense individually and impose a separate sentence for each)
State v. Elmore, 122 Ohio St.3d 472 (2009) (discusses rule of lenity and that concurrent sentences are the default absent statutory authorization for consecutive service)