State v. Thomas, 2012 Ohio 2626

Thomas Thomas was convicted on 13 counts; six convictions were vacated for insufficient evidence in a prior appeal.
A new sentencing entry was issued consistent with the mandate in State v. Thomas, reimposing the same prison terms on the remaining counts.
Thomas appeals claiming the trial court violated his constitutional rights by not holding a new sentencing hearing to address a potentially shorter sentence after vacating counts.
The appellate court held that a sentencing court cannot modify a final sentence.
Vacating some counts did not affect the validity of the remaining convictions or their sentences, which remained final.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is resentencing required when some counts are vacated on appeal?	Thomas argues for resentencing on remaining counts due to fewer extant counts.	State contends no resentencing is required because each sentence is for a separate offense and final.	No resentencing required; final sentences unchanged.
Does vacating some counts require a new sentencing hearing for the remaining counts?	Thomas contends a new hearing is needed to reflect potential shorter sentences.	State argues a new hearing is not required when sentences for remaining counts remain valid.	No new sentencing hearing necessary; each count remains independently sentenced.

State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006-Ohio-1245) (sentence is the sanction for each separate offense; no single ‘sentencing package’)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (2010-Ohio-2) (remand in allied-offenses context; state may elect which offense to pursue)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011-Ohio-2669) (remand requires new sentencing for remaining offenses when allied offenses are involved)
State v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127 (2011-Ohio-6553) (court has no authority to modify final sentence)
United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (Supreme Court 1989) (double jeopardy concerns when multiple punishments for same conduct)