appealed error in Ohio

2023Wayne No. 07CA43, 2008-Ohio-4153, ¶ 5 , quoting Neiswinter v. Nationwide Mut.

2011Further, only the sentences for the offenses that were affected by the appealed error are reviewed de novo; the sentences for any offenses that were not affected by the appealed error are not vacated and are not subject to review. [State v.] Saxon[, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2006-Ohio-1245 ,] at paragraph three of the syllabus.” Wilson, at ¶15 (emphasis added). {¶ 8} “The law of the case doctrine requires lower courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts when ‘confronted [on remand] with substantially the same facts and issues as were involved in the prior appeal.’ Thus, litigants are not per

2025Id. at ¶ 15. {¶31} In State v. Elmore, 2017-Ohio-925 (7th Dist.), we vacated Elmore’s sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing due to the trial court’s failure to set forth facts supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences.

2024Hamilton No. C-230165, 2023-Ohio-439, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 15 (“[W]hile a remand for a new sentencing hearing generally anticipates a de novo sentencing hearing, only the sentences for the offenses that were affected by the appealed error are reviewed de novo.

2022Lawrence App. Nos. 19CA20 & 19CA21 22 {¶51} In response, Hodge requests we extend Bearden to the facts of the case here because the trial court sentenced her to prison “where it otherwise found community control an appropriate penalty based solely on her inability to pay full restitution.” ANALYSIS {¶52} “[C]onstitutional guaranties of due process and equal protection both call for procedures in criminal trials which allow no invidious discriminations between persons and different groups of persons.” Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 17 , 76 S.Ct. 585 , 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956).

2022Lawrence App. Nos. 19CA20 & 19CA21 22 {¶51} In response, Hodge requests we extend Bearden to the facts of the case here because the trial court sentenced her to prison “where it otherwise found community control an appropriate penalty based solely on her inability to pay full restitution.” ANALYSIS {¶52} “[C]onstitutional guaranties of due process and equal protection both call for procedures in criminal trials which allow no invidious discriminations between persons and different groups of persons.” Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 17 , 76 S.Ct. 585 , 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956).

2020See State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 , 2010-Ohio-2 , 922 N.E.2d 182 , ¶ 12 (“a ‘conviction’ consists of a guilty verdict and the imposition of a sentence or penalty” [emphasis sic]); State v. Poindexter, 36 Ohio St.3d 1, 5 , 520 N.E.2d 568 (1988) (“[a] ‘conviction’ includes both the guilt determination and the penalty imposition” [emphasis sic]); see also State ex rel.

2020See State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 , 2010-Ohio-2 , 922 N.E.2d 182 , ¶ 12 (“a ‘conviction’ consists of a guilty verdict and the imposition of a sentence or penalty” [emphasis sic]); State v. Poindexter, 36 Ohio St.3d 1, 5 , 520 N.E.2d 568 (1988) (“[a] ‘conviction’ includes both the guilt determination and the penalty imposition” [emphasis sic]); see also State ex rel.

2020Specifically, the State maintains that Saxon stands for the proposition that “when a matter is remanded based only on a sentencing error resulting from a faulty allied-offenses analysis, ‘only the sentences for the offenses that were affected by the appealed error are reviewed de novo; the sentences for any offenses that were not affected by the appealed error are not vacated and are not subject to review.’” Mr. Pustelniak, on the other hand, maintains that the issue in this case is controlled by State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , and State v. Christian, Slip Opinion No. 20

2018Id., citing State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2006-Ohio-1245 , 846 N.E.2d 824 , at paragraph three of the syllabus.

2017In reviewing a felony sentence, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if 4 it determines by clear and convincing evidence” that: (1) “the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes[,]” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1 .

2017In reviewing a felony sentence, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if 4 it determines by clear and convincing evidence” that: (1) “the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes[,]” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1 .

2011Potain v. Mathews (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 29, 32 . {¶ 10} “The only issue before the trial court on remand was re-sentencing on the [attempted murder offense or the felonious assault offense.] * * * The doctrine of the law of the case prevented the trial court from considering arguments unrelated to that issue.” State v. Kendrick, Montgomery App. No. 21790, 2007-Ohio-6136, at ¶9 .

2011Further, only the sentences for the offenses that were affected by the appealed error are reviewed de novo; the sentences for any offenses that were not affected by the appealed error are not vacated and are not subject to review. [State v.] Saxon[, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2006-Ohio-1245 ,] at paragraph three of the syllabus.” Wilson, at ¶15 (emphasis added). {¶ 8} “The law of the case doctrine requires lower courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts when ‘confronted [on remand] with substantially the same facts and issues as were involved in the prior appeal.’ Thus, litigants are not per

2011Potain v. Mathews (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 29, 32 . {¶ 10} “The only issue before the trial court on remand was re-sentencing on the [attempted murder offense or the felonious assault offense.] * * * The doctrine of the law of the case prevented the trial court from considering arguments unrelated to that issue.” State v. Kendrick, Montgomery App. No. 21790, 2007-Ohio-6136, at ¶9 .

2011Further, only the sentences for the offenses that were affected by the appealed error are reviewed de novo; the sentences for any offenses that were not affected by the appealed error are not vacated and are not subject to review. [State v.] Saxon[, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2006-Ohio-1245 ,] at paragraph three of the syllabus.” Wilson, at ¶15 (emphasis added). {¶ 8} “The law of the case doctrine requires lower courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts when ‘confronted [on remand] with substantially the same facts and issues as were involved in the prior appeal.’ Thus, litigants are not per