State v. Mack, 2014 Ohio 4072

Mack was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine, both felonies of the second degree, while already serving a third-degree felony community-control sanction for failing to comply with police orders.
Mack admitted the new offenses violated his community-control terms.
Mack pled guilty to cocaine trafficking under a plea form titled 'plea of guilty to an agreed sentence' noting a two-year prison term; the cocaine-possession charge was dismissed as part of the plea.
After accepting the plea, the trial court sentenced Mack on both the trafficking charge and the community-control violation, stating it would terminate probation but impose two years for trafficking and two additional years for the probation violation, totaling four years.
The judgment entry explicitly sentenced Mack to four years for trafficking but did not address the community-control violation.
Appointed counsel sought to withdraw under Anders, concluding no meritorious issues; the court proceeded to appoint new counsel to brief potential errors related to sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mack was properly sentenced for trafficking and whether consecutive sentencing was correctly supported.	State contends the four-year term results from two two-year terms (trafficking and CC violation) and that proper findings for consecutive sentences were or should have been made.	Mack argues the sentence may exceed the plea agreement and that the entry may have been misexecuted or lacked required findings for consecutive terms.	Not wholly frivolous; remand for proper resolution and new counsel to address sentencing merits
Whether the trial court properly executed or could be required to adjust the sentence to reflect the plea agreement.	State asserts the plea and sentence alignment supports the two-year term (potentially consecutive) within the four-year total.	Mack contends the four-year sentence may exceed what was agreed or properly justified, given the plea terms.	Remand for further review and proper sentencing findings

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when no meritorious issues exist)
Gilbert, 2012-Ohio-1366 (1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110382 (Ohio 2012)) (requirements when appellate counsel concludes the appeal is frivolous)
State v. Williams, 183 Ohio App.3d 757 (1st Dist. 2009) (framework for assessing whether an appeal is wholly frivolous)
In re Booker, 133 Ohio App.3d 387 (1st Dist. 1999) (procedure on appointing counsel when non-frivolous issues exist)
State v. Jones, 2014-Ohio-3345 (1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130625 (Ohio 2014)) (consecutive-sentencing findings and entry execution considerations)