State v. Rock, 2016 Ohio 8516

David V. Rock, Jr. was convicted in Lake County Court of Common Pleas of third-degree felony OVI with a repeat-offender specification under R.C. 2941.1413.
On March 30, 2015, the trial court sentenced Rock to 36 months for the OVI and 4 years for the specification, ordered consecutive to each other and to an Ashland County sentence; Rock appealed.
This court vacated the consecutive-running determination for lack of requisite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and remanded for resentencing limited to whether the Lake County term should run consecutive to the Ashland County term.
On remand the trial court declined to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and ordered the Lake County sentence concurrent with the Ashland County sentence; Rock filed a delayed appeal from that December 8, 2015 judgment.
Rock raised three assignments of error attacking the total seven-year sentence as contrary to law, arguing abuse of discretion under R.C. 2929.12, and challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences as excessive; the court considered res judicata and the applicable sentencing statutes.
The court affirmed: Rock’s seven-year aggregate term (4-year specification + 36-month OVI) is lawful under State v. South, his challenges to the substance of the sentence were barred by res judicata, and the limited remand only changed concurrency with the Ashland sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rock)	Held
1. Whether Rock’s 7-year aggregate sentence is contrary to law	The sentence is lawful under the statutes and precedent interpreting OVI + repeat-specification	The combined term exceeds statutory maximums for a third-degree-felony OVI and is therefore void	Held lawful: OVI + R.C. 2941.1413 specification can reach up to 8 years; 7 years is not contrary to law
2. Whether trial court abused discretion by imposing maximum sentences (R.C. 2929.12)	Court considered sentencing and imposed within statutory ranges	Sentencing factors favored a lesser term; maximums were excessive	Barred by res judicata: these substantive sentencing challenges could have been raised in the direct appeal and were not preserved for this limited remand
3. Whether consecutive sentences were excessive / unnecessary (R.C. 2929.11)	State argues remand limited; trial court properly declined to make consecutive-sentence findings, then made sentence concurrent to Ashland term	Consecutive imposition (originally) was excessive and unnecessary to protect public	Barred by res judicata for challenges to the March 30, 2015 sentencing; remand only addressed concurrency with Ashland, which the trial court resolved by ordering concurrency

D'Ambrosio v. State, 73 Ohio St.3d 141 (res judicata bars claims raised or that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (foundational Ohio res judicata rule)
Fischer v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (void sentences may be reviewed at any time)
Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (appellate standard: vacate/modify felony sentence only upon clear-and-convincing showing record lacks statutory findings or sentence is contrary to law)
State v. South, 144 Ohio St.3d 295 (interpretation: third-degree-felony OVI + R.C. 2941.1413 repeat-specification permits 1–5 years for the specification consecutive and a separate 9–36 month term for OVI)
State v. South, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (res judicata and finality principles in criminal appeals)