State v. Barnhouse

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that a trial court may not impose consecutive jail sentences under R.C. 2929.16(A)(2). Applying R.C. 2929.41(A), the court concluded that such jail terms are sentences of imprisonment subject to the general requirement that multiple sentences run concurrently, and it reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. A trial court may not impose consecutive jail sentences under R.C. 2929.16(A)(2). Jail terms imposed under that provision are sentences of imprisonment subject to R.C. 2929.41(A)'s general requirement that sentences of imprisonment run concurrently, and R.C. 2929.16(A)(2) is not an enumerated exception.
2. The ineffective-assistance claim was moot because the court's resolution of the sentencing issue required reversal of the sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a trial court may impose consecutive six-month jail sentences under R.C. 2929.16(A)(2) as a sanction for violating community control.
2. Whether Barnhouse received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to challenge the trial court's authority to impose consecutive jail sentences.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded