State v. Horner, 2016 Ohio 7608

Marissa C. Horner pleaded guilty in two separate Cuyahoga County cases: amended trafficking (fourth-degree felony) in CR-15-593413-B and amended compelling prostitution (third-degree felony) in CR-15-594917-B; other counts were nolled.
The trial court sentenced Horner to 36 months imprisonment (maximum) in CR-15-594917-B and imposed three years of community-control sanctions in CR-15-593413-B, ordering the community control to commence after completion of the prison term; five years of postrelease control was imposed.
Horner timely appealed, raising (1) that the court failed to advise her of the prison exposure for violating community control and (2) that the court erred by imposing a maximum term and ordering consecutive service of the sentences.
The appellate majority found the trial court properly advised Horner of the prison exposure for violating community control but concluded the court lacked statutory authority to make community control consecutive to a prison term, rendering the community-control sentence void.
The court affirmed the 36-month prison sentence, vacated the consecutive-service order and the sentence in CR-15-593413-B, and remanded for resentencing/modification.

Issue	State's Argument	Horner's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to notify Horner of the prison term for violating community control	State: Court properly advised Horner of 18-month exposure and entry error is clerical	Horner: Court failed to notify her of consequences for violating community control	Held: Court did notify Horner at sentencing; no remand for that claim (clerical entry error correctable nunc pro tunc)
Whether the court could impose community-control sanctions to begin after a prison term (i.e., consecutive service)	State: Court had authority to structure consecutive timing across separate cases	Horner: Consecutive placement/order is permissible and within sentencing discretion	Held: Court lacked statutory authority to impose community control consecutive to a prison term; such sentence is void and must be vacated
Whether the 36-month maximum sentence for compelling prostitution was contrary to law	State: Sentence within statutory range and court considered required factors	Horner: Maximum sentence challenge (argued excessive)	Held: Affirmed — sentence within statutory range and court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors
Remedy when community control is ordered to follow imprisonment	State: Remand unnecessary; entry stands	Horner: Requested affirmation of consecutive structure	Held: Vacate the community-control sentence and the consecutive-order; remand for resentencing/modification to conform to statutory limits

State v. Barnhouse, 102 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio 2004) (trial court may not impose consecutive jail sentences under R.C. 2929.16(A)(2))
State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2015) (trial court must apply sentencing statutes as written; no inherent authority to create unauthorized sentences)