State v. Lausin, 2016 Ohio 5184

In 2008 Robert J. Lausin pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide (2nd degree), aggravated vehicular assault (3rd degree), and one DUI misdemeanor; the trial court imposed a "hybrid" sentence: six years on the homicide count with three years labeled mandatory, and three years on the assault count with one year labeled mandatory, imposed consecutively.
Lausin did not appeal his 2008 judgment but filed multiple judicial-release motions (denied) and in 2015 moved to withdraw his pleas or vacate an illegal sentence, arguing the hybrid sentence was invalid under State v. Ware.
The trial court (Jan. 12, 2016) denied plea-withdrawal but vacated the 2008 sentence as illegal/void and held a resentencing hearing.
On Feb. 3, 2016 the court resentenced Lausin to mandatory terms of six years (count 1) and three years (count 2), to run concurrently; because Lausin had served more than seven years he was released.
The State appealed, arguing Ware should not render Lausin’s original sentence void and that Ware should not apply retroactively; the appellate court affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the original 2008 hybrid sentence (dividing a mandatory term into mandatory + discretionary subterms) was illegal/void	The State: Ware does not invalidate Lausin’s 2008 sentence; Ware should not apply retroactively	Lausin: Ware establishes hybrid mandatory/discretionary sentences are illegal; his hybrid sentence is void	Court: The hybrid sentence violated statutory commands and Ware; such a sentence is void and was properly vacated
Whether Ware applies retroactively to a 2008 sentence	The State: Ware should be prospective and not applied to Lausin’s 2008 sentence	Lausin: Ware is an interpretation of existing law that shows hybrid sentences have always been illegal	Court: Ware interpreted existing statutory requirements; the invalidity of a sentence outside statutory parameters is longstanding, so Ware applies and vacates the 2008 sentence

State v. Ware, 141 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 2014) (holds no statute permits dividing a singular mandatory prison term into mandatory and discretionary subterms)
State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 1984) (attempts to disregard statutory sentencing requirements render the sentence void)
Colegrove v. Burns, 175 Ohio St. 437 (Ohio 1964) (sentences must conform to statutory penalties; courts may not judicially alter statutory sentences)
State v. Moore, 135 Ohio St.3d 151 (Ohio 2012) (a sentence that does not comply with statutory requirements is contrary to law and void)