State v. Logan, 2023 Ohio 1135

Jadyn Logan pleaded guilty to attempted having weapons while under disability (4th-degree felony) with a one-year firearm specification and forfeiture specification; other counts dismissed.
During plea and sentencing the court informed Logan the one-year firearm term was mandatory and must be served prior to and consecutive to any time imposed on the underlying charge.
At sentencing the court imposed the mandatory one-year prison term for the firearm specification and imposed two years of community-control on the underlying felony, to follow the one-year term.
The state appealed, arguing R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) required imposition of a prison term (not community control) on the underlying felony whenever a firearm was present.
The Eighth District affirmed: it held R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) mandates only the prison time tied to the firearm specification, not a mandatory prison term for the underlying felony, and that community control on the underlying felony was authorized and not an unlawful split sentence.
The court remanded for a nunc pro tunc correction to the journal entry to reflect that the specification term is prior and consecutive to the community-control term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) requires imposition of a mandatory prison term on the underlying felony when a firearm specification applies	R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) requires a prison term for the underlying felony because the specification attaches to that offense	The statute’s phrase "with respect to a portion of the sentence imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a) for having the firearm" limits the mandate to the specification portion only	Court held R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) mandates the firearm-specification prison term only, not a mandatory prison term for the underlying felony
Whether imposing mandatory prison for the firearm specification followed by community control for the underlying felony is an unlawful "split" sentence or otherwise unauthorized under R.C. 2929.15(A)(1)	The combined sentence is an unlawful split because community control is not allowed where a felony was committed with a firearm and a prison term is thus required	The statute’s reference to the sentence portion and precedent recognizing specifications as enhancements permit prison for the specification and community control for the underlying felony	Court held the sentence was authorized: community control on the underlying felony was permissible, not an unlawful split, and R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) did not bar community control because the underlying felony was not itself mandated to prison

State v. Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 541 (statutory limits on reducing mandatory prison terms)
State v. Taylor, 113 Ohio St.3d 297 (judicial-release limitations on mandatory terms)
State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398 (firearm specification is a sentencing enhancement, not a separate offense)
State v. White, 142 Ohio St.3d 277 (purpose of firearm specifications to enhance punishment/deter firearm use)
State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (split-sentence doctrine; prison vs community-control alternatives)
State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214 (limits on imposing community-based confinement consecutive to prison)
State v. Hamm, 65 N.E.3d 143 (Eighth Dist. decision permitting prison on a specification and community control on the underlying offense)