State v. Jones, 2014 Ohio 3345

Jones was convicted by Alford pleas of 14 counts of felony breaking and entering and 2 misdemeanor counts of attempted breaking and entering.
Counts 13 and 14 included firearm specifications; the firearm specification on count 14 was dismissed as part of plea negotiations.
The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of three years, with counts 1–12 and count 14 to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to count 13, and the firearm specification on count 13 added a mandatory one-year term.
A 180-day misdemeanor sentence was imposed and served concurrently with the felony sentences, and the misdemeanor terms were not challenged on appeal.
HB 86 (Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86) narrowed prison eligibility for first-time fifth-degree felons unless specific conditions apply; the statute requires community control for the majority of the fifth-degree offenses unless one of eleven exceptions applies.
The appellate court vacated the prison terms for the 12 fifth-degree felonies without firearms, found error in consecutive-sentence findings, and found failure to inform Jones about postrelease control requiring remand for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prison was permissible for most fifth-degree felonies under HB 86	Jones argues prison terms for 12 non-firearm offenses were improper.	Jones contends the court erred in imposing prison where community control was mandatory.	Prisons for 12 counts were not allowed; must impose community control instead.
Consecutive-sentence findings were properly made and incorporated	Court failed to make required findings for consecutive terms.	Prosecutor contends findings were not properly documented or incorporated.	Findings under RC 2929.14(C)(4) must be made and incorporated; error sustained.
Postrelease-control and related notifications at sentencing	Court failed to inform Jones about postrelease control and related consequences.	Defendant contends some notifications are non-substantive or already addressed elsewhere.	Notification about postrelease control required; remand for proper advisement.
Effect of firearm specifications on sentencing	Firearm specifications justified prison under certain criteria, but some counts lacked such justification.	Firearm-enabled sentences were appropriate for counts with firearm specifications; others not.	Two offenses with firearm specifications warranted prison; other counts required community control; vacate non-firearm counts' prison terms.

State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225 (1st Dist 2013) (guidance on review under R.C. 2953.08(G))
State v. Taylor, 2014-Ohio-460 (Ohio Sup Ct 2014) (HB 86 impact on prison vs. community-control options)
State v. Bonnell, Slip Opinion No. 2104-Ohio-3177 (Ohio Sup Ct 2014) (consecutive-sentencing findings must be made and incorporated)
State v. Alexander, 2012-Ohio-3349 (1st Dist Hamilton Nos. C-110828 & C-110829 2012) (requirements for consecutive sentences under RC 2929.14(C)(4))
State v. Curless, 2014-Ohio-1493 (1st Dist Hamilton No. C-130204 2014) (earned days credit notification eliminated)
State v. Haywood, 2014-Ohio-2801 (1st Dist Hamilton No. C-130525 2014) (drug-testing notification not a substantive right)