State v. Taylor, 2020 Ohio 909

In Nov. 2015 Taylor pled guilty to drug trafficking and possession of criminal tools; in Dec. 2015 the trial court sentenced him to 36 months, ordered to run consecutive to a 78‑month federal sentence.
On June 29, 2017 this court affirmed convictions but remanded limitedly to determine whether consecutive state sentences should be imposed. (Taylor I)
On Nov. 19, 2018 the trial court resentenced Taylor to the same 36 months and expressly made the statutory findings to run the state sentence consecutive to his federal sentence.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking leave to withdraw, concluding no meritorious appeal and noting a possible legal question whether the trial court believed it was required to impose consecutive sentences on remand.
Taylor filed a pro se brief that duplicated issues already raised and decided in Taylor I. The court found those claims barred by res judicata and, as to resentencing claims, moot because Taylor served the sentence. The court granted counsel’s withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court misunderstood this court’s remand and thought it had to reimpose consecutive sentences	State: trial court properly exercised discretion and made required findings for consecutive terms	Taylor: trial court may have believed remand required consecutive sentences rather than granting discretion	Court: No misunderstanding; court made R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)/Bonnell findings at resentencing; issue not meritorious
Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders	State: Anders procedures were satisfied and counsel may withdraw if appeal is frivolous	Taylor: (argues merits via pro se) but pro se brief recycles earlier claims	Court: Anders requirements met; independent review found no arguable issues; counsel’s motion granted
Whether Taylor’s pro se claims are reviewable here	State: prior issues were decided in Taylor I and are barred by res judicata	Taylor: reasserted prior appellate issues	Court: Claims identical to those in Taylor I are barred by res judicata; dismissed
Whether resentencing challenges are live	State: resentencing was procedurally proper and moot if sentence fully served	Taylor: seeks relief from resentencing errors	Court: To the extent claims challenge resentencing, they are moot because sentence was served

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and journalize statutory findings before imposing consecutive sentences)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (final judgment bars relitigation of issues raised or that could have been raised — res judicata)