State v. South (Slip Opinion), 144 Ohio St. 3d 295

Defendant Edward South was indicted and convicted of third-degree felony OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (d)), a repeat-offender specification under R.C. 2941.1413, and driving under suspension; the two OVI counts were merged for sentencing.
The trial court imposed a 3-year sentence for the repeat-offender specification and an additional consecutive 5-year sentence for the underlying OVI, labeling both as “mandatory.”
The Ninth District vacated the sentences, holding the additional OVI term could not exceed 3 years under R.C. 2929.14(A)(3), and remanded for resentencing; it certified conflict with a contrary Twelfth District decision.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the conflict question and harmonized the statutes rather than letting one prevail over others.
The Court held that the specification carries a mandatory 1–5 year sentence to be served prior to and consecutively with any sentence for the underlying OVI; the underlying third-degree-felony OVI carries a discretionary additional definite term of 9–36 months.
The Court reinstated South’s 3-year specification sentence, vacated the 5-year OVI term as contrary to law, and remanded for resentencing on the underlying OVI consistent with R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 4511.19 (OVI statute) or R.C. 2929.14(A) controls the maximum additional sentence for an underlying third-degree-felony OVI when a repeat-offender specification (R.C. 2941.1413) is convicted	Summit County (plaintiff/appellant) argued the sentencing scheme allows imposition of any duration listed in R.C. 2929.14(A)(3), including up to 5 years	South (defendant) argued the applicable R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b) caps the additional underlying OVI term at 3 years (9–36 months)	The Court harmonized the statutes: the specification mandates 1–5 years (to be served prior and consecutively), and the underlying OVI is subject to a discretionary 9–36 month term under R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b)

State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543 (statutory-construction principle: look to legislative intent)
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo‑Lucas Cty. Bd. of Health, 96 Ohio St.3d 250 (harmonize statutes addressing same subject to give effect to each)
Maxfield v. Brooks, 110 Ohio St. (1924) (court must give proper force and effect to each statute when possible)
State v. Evans, 113 Ohio St.3d 100 (2007) (specifications and underlying offenses are sentenced separately; appellate vacatur limits)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (appellate authority on vacating sentences contrary to law)