State v. Yates, 2012 Ohio 1781

Yates pled guilty to a second-degree felony possession of heroin under a plea agreement conditioning a 2-year term on appearing for PSI and the March 10 sentencing; he failed to appear.
At the original sentencing, the court imposed a 5-year term and a $7,500 fine based on failure to appear, prior drug felonies, and other aggravating factors, aided by a bond report alleging he transported drugs.
On appeal (Yates I), we reviewed whether the court erred by denying him an opportunity to respond to the bond report and remanded to determine if the bond report was considered and, if so, whether Yates was told of it and given a chance to respond, and to append the report to the PSI if used.
On remand, Yates presented testimony that he was in Atlanta caring for his grandmother; the court appended the bond report to the PSI and again resentenced him to 5 years with the same $7,500 fine.
The five assignments of error included challenges to the sentence and the fine; the court ultimately overruled them and affirmed the judgment.
The court declined to reconsider the bond-report-related issues under res judicata and limited review to the sentence as applied under Kalish and related standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bond report compliance affected the sentence	Yates argues the bond report was inaccurate and should have been addressed under R.C. 2951.03(B)(5).	State contends the bond report was not a PSI and the statute does not apply; the trial court need not resolve the discrepancies.	Bond report not governed by 2951.03(B)(5); no error in consideration of the report.
Whether remand proceedings violated due process/vindictiveness	Yates claims vindictive resentencing on remand.	State contends sentence simply reflects original factors and is not vindictive.	No vindictiveness; reasons remained the same and sentence remained within guidelines.
Whether the 5-year sentence violated sentencing statutes/purposes	Yates argues the resentencing should reflect mitigating evidence presented on remand.	Court properly considered statutory factors and prior history; sentence within guidelines.	Sentence is not an abuse of discretion and conforms with R.C. 2929.11–12.
Whether the fine issues are reviewable on remand	Yates asserts separation-of-powers and Eighth Amendment concerns; argues ineffective assistance.	Fine issues are barred by res judicata on remand and fall outside current review.	Fine issues not reviewable; issues are beyond scope of remand and are overruled.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two-step sentencing review and compliance with sentencing statutes)
State v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (vindictive sentencing prohibition on remand)
State v. D’Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141 (Ohio 1995) (res judicata limits reassertion of issues on remand)
State v. Gillard, 78 Ohio St.3d 548 (Ohio 1997) (issues beyond remand scope not reviewable)