State v. Huber, 2012 Ohio 6139

Huber was convicted in 2009 of kidnapping, attempted felonious assault, and two counts of aggravated robbery with repeat violent offender specifications.
Original sentencing imposed an aggregate 15-year prison term; postrelease control was later addressed on direct appeal.
This court's November 2010 decision (Huber I) was reconsidered in 2011 (Huber II) with two judges concurring; Judge Dyke did not participate in Huber II.
Huber II held that aggravated robbery and kidnapping were not allied offenses and affirmed convictions, but remanded for resentencing on a particular basis, including postrelease control and consecutive terms.
On remand (May 2012), the trial court merged the second aggravated robbery count into the first, imposed six years on aggravated robbery, and kept kidnapping and attempted felonious assault terms; the aggregate remained 15 years; postrelease control term of five years was imposed; costs were ordered.
Huber appeals asserting (a) lack of jurisdiction due to two-judge reconsideration, (b) improper consecutive-sentence imposition, and (c) improper costs notification; the appellate court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for limited resentencing on costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the remand resentencing valid when Huber II was issued by two judges?	Huber contends Huber II was void ab initio due to two-judge participation.	State argues the panel had authority to reconsider and issue Huber II.	First assignment overruled; remand valid.
Did the trial court err by resenting only aggravated robbery and postrelease control and not de novo on the consecutive nature of the sentence?	Huber asserts de novo resentencing was required for all offenses and the consecutive term.	State argues limits apply per law-of-the-case and allied-offenses reasoning for remaining offenses.	Consecutive-sentence de novo required; proper findings under HB 86 supported; ruling upheld in part, remand required for limited aspect.
Was the costs-imposition proper given missing mandatory notifications to pay costs by community service warning?	Huber challenges the lack of required costs-notification warning.	State concedes error; notification required at sentencing.	Third assignment sustained; remand for limited resentencing on costs.

State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006-Ohio-1245) (sentencing package doctrine not applicable; de novo per-offense sentencing required)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011-Ohio-2669) (remand for proper resentencing limited to errors; law-of-the-case concepts apply)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (law-of-the-case and res judicata considerations in remands)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (res judicata applies to elements of conviction and sentence on remand)
State v. Pembaur, 69 Ohio St.2d 110 (1982) (constitutional requirement of three judges to render a judgment; two may not suffice when a third retires)
Pratts v. Hurley, 2004-Ohio-1980 (2004) (voidable vs void orders; three-judge panel requirement in sentencing matters)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006-Ohio-1245) (see above (listed for emphasis))
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011-Ohio-2669) (see above (listed for emphasis))