State v. Smith, 2014 Ohio 3224

Eric Smith was convicted of aggravated robbery and drug possession; jury found him guilty of a one-year firearm specification (not the three-year spec).
Trial court originally sentenced Smith to 8 years for aggravated robbery consecutive to 1 year on the firearm spec, and 12 months on drug possession consecutive to Count 1.
This court reversed the firearm-specification conviction for insufficient evidence and remanded; on remand the trial court vacated the spec, reduced concurrency (ordered concurrent sentences) based on rehabilitative records, and told Smith he "got a year off."
This court then held the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction on remand (could not resentence de novo) and instructed the trial court to reinstate Smith’s original sentence minus the one-year firearm specification.
On second remand the trial court reinstated the original consecutive sentence (without the vacated firearm spec); Smith appealed arguing the consecutive sentence was invalid because the trial court failed to make the R.C. 2929.14(C) findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing a consecutive sentence on remand without making R.C. 2929.14(C) findings	State: The trial court properly followed this court’s mandate to reinstate the original consecutive sentence	Smith: Consecutive sentence invalid because court did not make required statutory findings when resentencing	Court: Affirmed — trial court was bound by appellate mandate and lacked jurisdiction to perform de novo resentencing or to relitigate findings; reinstatement was proper

State v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127, 2011-Ohio-6553, 961 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio 2011) (trial court generally lacks authority to modify a final criminal sentence absent statutory power)