State v. Wells, 2013 Ohio 5821

Schon Wells was indicted on multiple felonies after fleeing police on a stolen motorcycle, abandoning it, entering a victim’s house to hide, and later being captured by police canines.
Jury convicted Wells of failure to comply with an officer (R.C. 2921.331), receiving stolen property, and burglary; one duplicative failure-to-comply count was merged at trial.
Original sentence: 3 years for failure to comply, 18 months for receiving stolen property, and 5 years for burglary, with all terms ordered concurrent (total 5 years).
On direct appeal (Wells I) this court reduced the burglary conviction to a third-degree felony and remanded for resentencing on that count.
At resentencing the trial court reduced burglary to 2 years, kept 18 months for receiving stolen property (concurrent to burglary), and re-imposed 3 years for failure to comply but ordered that 3-year term to run consecutively as required by R.C. 2921.331(D), yielding a total of 5 years.
Wells did not object at the resentencing hearing and appealed, arguing the trial court exceeded its authority under State v. Saxon by altering the multi-count sentencing package on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wells)	Held
Whether trial court erred in imposing consecutive term for failure to comply on resentencing	The trial court correctly corrected a void sentence and applied mandatory R.C. 2921.331(D); alternately, the court had discretion on remand to impose consecutive terms	Saxon limits a remand to only the sentence for the specific count being resentenced (burglary); the court could not change other counts’ concurrency	The court affirmed: R.C. 2921.331(D) mandates consecutive imprisonment for failure-to-comply when a prison term is imposed; original concurrent sentence was void and required correction; remand did not bar imposing consecutive term

State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2006) (appellate courts may modify or remand only the sentence for the offense appealed; rejected federal "sentencing-package" doctrine)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 2008) (a sentence that omits a statutorily mandated term is void; trial court retains jurisdiction to correct a void sentence)
State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 1984) (attempt to disregard statutory sentencing requirements renders the attempted sentence a nullity)
State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 2011) (failure to object at sentencing waives all but plain error)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (sets strict standard for plain-error review in criminal cases)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (defendant bears burden to demonstrate plain error)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error correction should be exercised with utmost caution)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial court retains broad discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range on remand)