State v. Whetstone, 2011 Ohio 1957

Appellant was indicted October 16, 2008 on four counts related to drug offenses in Licking County, Ohio.
Appellant pled no contest to all four counts; trial court convicted on all counts and imposed multi-count prison terms and postrelease control.
Appellant previously appealed; this Court concluded the sentencing entry was not final/appealable and remanded for resentencing with guidance to clarify count one.
Resentencing occurred May 24, 2010, where the court merged counts 1 and 2 (allegedly allied offenses) and imposed sentences of five years on count 1, eight months on count 3, and 30 days on count 4, totaling five years eight months, consecutive to another case.
The trial court did not inform Appellant of Crim.R. 32(B)(2) and (3) rights at sentencing, but the appellate court found no reversible error given Appellant pursued the appeal with counsel.
Appellant challenges the adequacy of the de novo resentencing process and the other ancillary issues; the appellate court ultimately affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing was de novo as required on remand	Whetstone argues no de novo hearing occurred.	Whetstone contends remand required new, independent sentencing.	De novo sentencing occurred; proper independent hearing.
Whether merger of counts 1 and 2 was proper and legally correct	State urged merger as appropriate under allied offenses doctrine.	Whetstone argued error in limiting sentences due to merger ruling.	Merger of counts 1 and 2 proper; merged as intended.
Whether failure to inform Crim.R. 32 rights was reversible error	State contends no prejudice from lack of Crim.R. 32 notice.	Whetstone asserted error due to lack of notice.	No reversible prejudice; failure to inform explained away given counsel and appellate representation.
Whether de minimis error in sentencing entry warranted correction	State argues minor clerical/entry issue is harmless.	Whetstone requests correction of minor misstatement in the entry.	Issue deemed improper to address on this appeal; not reversible error.

State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006-Ohio-855) (remanded resentencing requires de novo hearing unless parties stipulate to record)
State v. Riley, 184 Ohio App.3d 211 (2009-Ohio-3227) (resentencing on remand is an independent proceeding with full procedures)
State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54 (2008-Ohio-1625) (de novo resentencing framework under Cabrales)
State v. Middleton, 2005-Ohio-681 (Ohio App.3d) (Crim.R. 32 notice and prejudice considerations on appeal)