State v. Jones, 2022 Ohio 4485

Background

Brooke Jones pleaded guilty in Harrison County to endangering children and was sentenced (Nov. 4, 2016) to five years of community control with a two-year prison term reserved for revocation. Remaining charges were dismissed.
At the plea/sentencing the court informed Jones of the reserved prison term but did not notify her that, on revocation, the reserved term might be ordered to run consecutively to other sentences arising later.
Jones later was convicted in Jefferson County and received a three-year prison sentence; the Harrison County court revoked community control and ordered the two-year reserved term to run consecutively to the three-year Jefferson County sentence.
The Seventh District affirmed the authority to impose a consecutive reserved term without prior notice but vacated the sentence because the trial court had not made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required for consecutive sentences and remanded for that analysis; it later certified a conflict with other districts.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that a reserved prison term may be ordered consecutively to another sentence only if the offender was notified at the time community control was imposed that a consecutive sentence on revocation was possible; absent such notice the reserved term must run concurrently.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may order a reserved prison term to run consecutively to another sentence on revocation without prior notice at the time community control was imposed	Jones: court lacked authority to impose consecutive sentence because she received no notice that reserved term could be consecutive	State: original sentencing court has authority to impose consecutive reserved term even without specific prior notice	The Court held: prior notice at time community control was imposed is required for the court to have authority to impose a consecutive reserved term on revocation; absent notice the reserved term must run concurrently
Whether prior appellate decisions treating reserved terms as "imposed" for consecutive-sentence purposes remain good law	Jones: reserved term is a future potential sentence and cannot function as an existing sentence for consecutive-ordering	State/other districts: some courts allowed treating reserved terms as available for consecutive ordering by another court	The Court held: reserved prison terms are not yet imposed; cases (e.g., Ashworth, Thompson) that treated them as existing sentences are inconsistent with Ohio precedent and are no longer good law
Whether R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings are required when imposing consecutive sentences after revocation	State: even if notice is required, statutory consecutive-sentence findings must be made at revocation	Jones: primary defect was lack of notice; statutory findings also required if consecutive is permitted	The Court held: if a court is to impose consecutive sentences after revocation (and had given prior notice), it must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; here, because no notice was given, consecutive sentencing was unauthorized and the reserved term must be concurrent

Key Cases Cited

State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (trial court must notify offender of the specific reserved prison term when imposing community control)
State v. White, 18 Ohio St.3d 340 (a court cannot order a sentence to run consecutively to a future, not-yet-imposed sentence)
State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 (a court may order a sentence to run consecutively to a sentence previously imposed by another Ohio court, but that presumes the other sentence exists)
State v. Howard, 162 Ohio St.3d 314 (reserved prison term is a potential future sentence and the court need not make consecutive-sentence findings when merely reserving a term)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (judicial sentencing power is constrained by statutory text; courts must apply sentencing statutes as written)