State v. Richmond, 2012 Ohio 3946

State appealed the trial court's sentence of 30 days in county jail and a $200 fine imposed on Richmond after he pled guilty to an amended harassment by inmate (a fifth-degree felony).
State argues the trial court was limited to community control sanctions or a 6–12 month prison term and erred by not imposing a proper statutorily mandated sentence or considering a presentence investigation report.
Trial court did not obtain or consider a presentence investigation report before imposing community control sanctions (or an equivalent sentence).
Prosecutor attended sentencing but did not object; the issue is reviewed for plain error if no objection is raised.
Court concludes the lack of a presentence investigation report renders the sentence not authorized by law and remands for resentencing consistent with law, while recognizing that the jail sentence can function as a community residential sanction and that probation supervision may not be required under Nash.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was absence of a presentence report before community control sanctions authorized by law?	State contends no report, sanction invalid.	Richmond contends sentence valid.	Sentence not authorized; remand for proper sentencing.
Is probation supervision required when credit for time served and financial sanctions exist?	State argues supervision is obligatory.	Richmond argues Nash permits no mandatory supervision.	Supervision not required under Nash.
Did lack of prosecutor objection at sentencing waive error or rise to plain error?	State argues waiver; plain error remains.	Richmond relies on lack of objection.	Plain error review applies; error found and remand ordered.
Is a 30-day jail term permissible as a community residential sanction under the cited statutes?	State asserts jail time can be a residential sanction.	Richmond contends misapplication of sanctions.	Jail term can constitute a community residential sanction.
Should the case be reversed and remanded for resentencing consistent with law?	State seeks resentencing.	Richmond seeks finality if proper.	Yes; reversed and remanded for proper resentencing.

State v. Mitchell, 141 Ohio App.3d 770 ((8th Dist.2001)) (presentence report required before community control sanctions)
State v. Nash, 8th Dist. Nos. 96575, 96596 (2012-Ohio-3246) (supervision under community control not always required; plain-error context)
State v. Disanza, 8th Dist. No. 92375 (2009-Ohio-5364) (plain-error for imposing sanctions without presentence report)
State v. Walker, 8th Dist. No. 90692 (2008-Ohio-5123) (plain-error concerns in absence of report)
State v. Pickett, 8th Dist. No. 91343 (2009-Ohio-2127) (plain-error when no PSR before community control)