State v. Willard, 2014 Ohio 5278

Christopher Willard pleaded no contest to 21 counts involving child pornography and related offenses and was sentenced in August 2012 to five years of community control with a suspended aggregate prison term of 20.5 years (one year on Counts 1–20 consecutively, plus six months on Count 21).
As a condition of community control Willard was prohibited from using or contacting computers.
In January 2014 probation officers alleged Willard violated community control by using the internet via a cellphone and possessing pornographic images of a prepubescent male; he admitted possession of the phone and images.
The trial court found a violation and imposed an eight-year prison term.
On appeal Willard argued (1) the original sentence contained illegal terms (one-year terms on nine second-degree felonies) and (2) the violation/sentence must be vacated because the original community-control warning was based on a void suspended sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether one-year terms on nine second-degree felonies rendered the original sentence illegal/void	State concedes those one-year terms were contrary to law but asks the court to correct the sentence without remand and keep the violation/sentence	Willard argues the one-year terms violate R.C. 2929.14, making the suspended sentence void and requiring resentencing; because the original sentence was void, the community-control warning was inaccurate and the violation and 8-year sentence must be vacated	The court held the one-year terms on second-degree felonies were void because second-degree felonies have a 2–8 year statutory range; vacated those sentences and remanded for resentencing
Whether the community-control imposition and subsequent violation sentence must be vacated because the offender was not properly notified of the correct maximum upon sentencing	State argues Willard benefitted from the error and the violation/sentence can stand	Willard argues Brooks requires the court to have notified him of the specific prison term he could face, and the void original sentence meant the notice was inaccurate, so the community-control sanction is void	The court held that because the trial court failed to follow R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) by relying on a void aggregate sentence, the community-control imposition was void; it vacated the violation and the eight-year sentence and remanded for de novo resentencing

State v. Fischer, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (void-judgment principle; sentences not in accordance with statute are void)
State v. Payne, 873 N.E.2d 306 (Ohio 2007) (ordinary sentencing errors subject to res judicata and R.C. 2953.21; void sentences are exception)
State v. Brooks, 814 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must notify offender at sentencing of specific prison term that may be imposed for community-control violation)
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) (when sentence is void the remedy is vacatur and remand for resentencing)
State v. Jordan, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (void sentences that omit statutorily mandated terms require resentencing)
State v. Beasley, 471 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio 1984) (trial court has no authority to impose a sentence different from statute)
Colegrove v. Burns, 195 N.E.2d 811 (Ohio 1963) (court lacks power to substitute a different sentence than provided by statute)