State v. Jimenez, 2017 Ohio 1553

Defendant Joshua Jimenez pleaded guilty to a third‑degree felony for failing to notify a changed address as required of a sexual offender and was sentenced to one year of community control to be served at a community‑based correctional facility (CBCF) if placed there.
The trial court ordered CBCF screening and warned that violation of community control could result in a 36‑month prison term for the underlying offense.
Jimenez was terminated from the CBCF for noncompliance; at a preliminary hearing he admitted the violation and the trial court imposed the promised 36‑month prison term (with 172 days credit).
On appeal Jimenez argued (1) the revocation procedure violated due process, (2) the 36‑month sentence was contrary to law because the court did not consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, and (3) his attorney was ineffective for not probing the violation’s nature.
The appellate court held the notice-plus‑admission satisfied due process and that Jimenez waived most objections (and invited any error by conceding the violation), but vacated the 36‑month sentence because the trial court did not conduct a de novo sentencing that complied with felony sentencing statutes and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the summary revocation proceeding & admitted violation sufficient to satisfy due process?	State: oral notice and defendant’s admission were sufficient.	Jimenez: procedure deprived him of due process.	Held: Notice + admission satisfied due process; any error invited/waived.
Did the trial court lawfully impose the 36‑month prison term without re‑considering felony sentencing factors?	State: sentencing factors were considered at original hearing so reimposition was proper.	Jimenez: court “predetermined” sentence and failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 at the violation hearing.	Held: Sentence vacated — trial court must conduct a de novo sentencing that complies with applicable sentencing statutes.
Ineffective assistance of counsel at the violation hearing?	State: counsel’s performance not shown to be prejudicial; defendant admitted violation.	Jimenez: counsel failed to inquire into nature of violation.	Held: Claim fails/waived; defendant conceded violation and did not preserve all but plain error.

State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13, 821 N.E.2d 995 (Ohio 2004) (courts must notify offenders of specific prison term for violation and must re‑sentence in compliance with sentencing statutes)
State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374, 56 N.E.3d 965 (Ohio 2016) (sentencing following community control violation must comply with sentencing standards)
State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 747 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 2001) (constitutional rights may be forfeited by failure to timely assert them)
Hal Artz Lincoln‑Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 20, 502 N.E.2d 590 (Ohio 1986) (invited‑error doctrine bars a party from asserting an error it induced)