State v. Christian

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that when a portion of a defendant’s sentence is vacated on direct appeal, the trial court may resentence the defendant de novo on the affected counts, even if the defendant has served the original prison term for one of those counts. The court concluded that resentencing did not violate double-jeopardy protections because the vacated sentence was a nullity and the defendant lacked an expectation of finality during the appellate process. The court also held that the defendant was entitled to credit for time previously served and remanded for consideration of her challenge to consecutive sentencing.

Holdings

1. When a portion of a defendant's sentence has been vacated on direct appeal, the trial court has authority to resentence the defendant de novo on any counts for which the original sentence was vacated, even if the defendant served the original prison term associated with a count before resentencing.
2. Resentencing on counts whose sentences were invalidated on direct appeal does not constitute multiple punishment for the same offense and does not violate double-jeopardy protections.
3. When a defendant is resentenced on counts whose sentences were vacated on direct appeal, the defendant must receive full credit for punishment previously served on those counts; time served simultaneously on Counts Two and Five must be credited toward both new sentences.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a trial court may resentence a defendant de novo on a count after the sentence for that count was vacated on direct appeal, even though the defendant had served the original prison term for that count.
2. Whether de novo resentencing after a sentence is vacated on direct appeal violates the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.
3. Whether the defendant is entitled to credit for time served simultaneously on multiple counts toward the new sentences imposed on those counts.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded