State v. Smith, 2022 Ohio 257

Michael A. Smith was indicted on five drug-related felonies and pleaded guilty to two counts (aggravated possession of methamphetamine and fentanyl); remaining counts were dismissed.
At sentencing (March 2018) the court imposed community control with NEOCAP placement, warned that violation could result in prison terms (6 months on count 1, 12 months on count 2) and that those terms could run consecutively to each other and to a 54-month sentence in a separate case (2017 CR 00290).
Smith failed to complete a treatment program; probation moved to revoke community control, and Smith admitted the violation.
At the revocation hearing the court revoked community control and imposed two 12-month prison terms to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the unrelated 54-month sentence. The court did not make contemporaneous statutory findings required for consecutive sentences.
The sentencing entry recited language tracking R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) but the required specific (a)/(b)/(c) finding was not made at the hearing nor incorporated into the entry. The state conceded error on appeal.
The appellate court reversed the consecutive-sentence determination and remanded for the trial court to decide whether to impose the consecutive obligation and, if so, to make and journalize the required findings on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by ordering the 12-month terms to run consecutively to the 54-month sentence without making R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporating them into the entry	State conceded the trial court failed to make required findings	Smith argued consecutive sentence is invalid because statutory findings were not made on the record and not incorporated into the entry	Reversed in part and remanded: consecutive ordering is contrary to law; trial court must either impose concurrent service or make and journalize the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at a new hearing or on remand before imposing consecutive service

State v. Bonnell, [citation="16 N.E.3d 659"] (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record and incorporate them into the sentencing entry to impose consecutive terms)
State v. Gwynne, [citation="141 N.E.3d 169"] (Ohio 2019) (standard of appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Howard, [citation="165 N.E.3d 1088"] (Ohio 2020) (requirement to make consecutive-sentence findings when revoking community control)
State v. Marcum, [citation="59 N.E.3d 1231"] (Ohio 2016) (definition and discussion of clear-and-convincing standard)
Cross v. Ledford, [citation="120 N.E.2d 118"] (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
Anders v. California, [citation="386 U.S. 738"] (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel submitting an Anders brief)