State v. Welz, 2021 Ohio 2553

In 2015 Welz was indicted on four counts of fifth-degree breaking-and-entering and pleaded guilty to all counts under a written plea agreement.
The plea/joint recommendation called for 10-month terms; at sentencing the court imposed 10 months on counts 1–2 (concurrent to each other, consecutive to an unrelated Lake County sentence) and five years of community control on counts 3–4.
The trial court did not notify Welz at the original sentencing of the specific prison terms that could be imposed for violation of community control under R.C. 2929.19(B)(4).
In 2018 Welz violated community control; at that revocation-hearing the court (and the entry) notified him that further violations could result in up to 12 months on each count, and the court ordered NEOCAP.
In 2019 Welz admitted a second community-control violation; the court revoked community control and imposed two consecutive one-year prison terms but made no on-the-record findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
The state conceded the absence of the required consecutive-sentencing findings; the appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing with required findings if consecutive terms are again imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to notify of specific prison terms at initial sentencing under R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) invalidates later prison terms for community-control violations	State: Any initial-notice defect was cured because the court provided the specific-term notice at the 2018 revocation hearing (Fraley/Howard)	Welz: Trial court never advised him at original sentencing of the specific prison terms available for violating community control, so later prison terms are impermissible	Court: No error — notice given at the 2018 revocation hearing cured the initial omission (first assignment overruled)
Whether imposition of consecutive one-year terms was lawful without R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and incorporation in the judgment entry	State: Conceded the court failed to make the required consecutive-sentence findings and that this requires reversal/remand	Welz: Consecutive sentences are invalid because the court never conducted or pronounced the statutory findings at sentencing or in the entry	Court: Error — trial court did not make or incorporate the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; sentence reversed and case remanded for resentencing (second assignment sustained)

State v. Brooks, 814 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must notify offender at sentencing of the specific prison term that may be imposed for a community-control violation)
State v. Fraley, 821 N.E.2d 995 (Ohio 2004) (notice of the specific prison term may be provided at an intervening revocation hearing and cure an initial-notice defect)
State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings on the record and incorporate them into the judgment entry)
State v. Howard, 165 N.E.3d 1088 (Ohio 2020) (vacating sentence where court revoked community control and imposed consecutive terms without required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (explaining appellate standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))