State v. Walker, 2018 Ohio 2642

DaJhon Walker was convicted of multiple counts including aggravated murder, murder, several felonious assaults, and having a weapon while under disability; the aggravated-murder conviction was vacated on appeal.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the vacation of the aggravated-murder conviction and remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts affected by that error.
At resentencing the trial court proceeded on Count 2 (murder) and imposed 15 years-to-life plus a mandatory 3-year firearm specification, and also resentenced Counts 6 (felonious assault of Anderson) and 10 (weapons under disability).
Walker appealed, arguing (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence Counts 6 and the firearm specification because one sentence had been fully served and reimposition violated double jeopardy, and (2) the consecutive-sentencing findings were unsupported by the record.
The appellate court held the trial court erred in resentencing Counts 6 and 10 because those counts were not affected by the appealed error and thus were not subject to resentencing; those original sentences were reinstated.
The court upheld resentencing on Count 2 (murder) and the attendant 3-year firearm specification, finding the specification is a separate, mandatory consecutive term and that resentencing did not violate double jeopardy; the court remanded for an amended journal entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to resentence Counts 6 and 10	State: resentencing effectually incorporated existing sentences; no jurisdictional bar	Walker: trial court lost jurisdiction to reimpose sentence on counts already served; double jeopardy bars multiple punishment	Court: Resentencing scope limited to offenses affected by appealed error; Counts 6 and 10 were not affected, so resentencing them was error; original sentences reinstated
Authority to resentence firearm specification and consecutive-term challenge	State: firearm spec and murder properly resentenced; spec is separate mandatory consecutive term	Walker: Holdcroft requires barring resentencing or consecutive-run orders where a sentence served during appeal would be disrupted; double jeopardy / finality concerns	Court: firearm specification is a separate statutory consecutive term and resentencing as to Count 2 and its spec was permissible; consecutive imposition upheld; Walker cannot relitigate consecutive order for Count 6 (res judicata)

State v. Walker, 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 82 N.E.3d 1124 (Ohio 2016) (Ohio Supreme Court affirmed vacation of aggravated-murder conviction and remanded for resentencing)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 951 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 2011) (limits on scope of resentencing after appellate reversal)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (clarifies which sentences are subject to de novo resentencing)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526, 1 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2013) (trial court cannot add postrelease control after defendant already served the prison term for that offense)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars raising issues on collateral attack that could have been raised on direct appeal)