[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Hitchcock, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-3246.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2019-OHIO-3246

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. HITCHCOCK, APPELLANT. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Hitchcock, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-3246.] 

Criminal law—Sentencing—Trial court lacked authority to order, as part of 

community-control sentence, that defendant be placed in community-based 

correctional facility after completing separate prison term—Court of 

appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded for resentencing. 

(No. 2018-0012—Submitted February 20, 2019—Decided August 15, 2019.) 

CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Fairfield County, No. 16-CA-41, 

2017-Ohio-8255. 

________________ 

 FISCHER, J. 

{¶ 1} In this case, we are tasked with answering the certified-conflict 

question whether a trial court may impose community-control sanctions on one 

felony count to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed on a separate 

felony count. We answer that question in the negative and conclude that unless 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

otherwise authorized by statute, a trial court may not impose community-control 

sanctions on one felony count to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed 

on another felony count. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background 

{¶ 2} In 2016, appellant, Jeffery A. Hitchcock, was charged with four thirddegree felony counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in violation of R.C. 

2907.04(A) and (B)(3) and one first-degree misdemeanor count of endangering 

children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A) and (E)(2)(a). Each of the felony counts 

alleged identical conduct: that Hitchcock engaged in sexual conduct with a 

particular minor. 

{¶ 3} Appellee, the state of Ohio, and Hitchcock reached a plea agreement 

in which Hitchcock agreed to plead guilty to three of the counts of unlawful sexual 

conduct with a minor (Counts One, Two, and Three) and the state agreed to move 

to dismiss the remaining count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (Count 

Four) and the count of endangering children (Count Five). The trial court accepted 

Hitchcock’s pleas, found him guilty of Counts One, Two, and Three, and dismissed 

the remaining counts. 

{¶ 4} The trial court found that the offenses occurred on different dates and 

that the offenses were not allied offenses of similar import and did not merge for 

purposes of sentencing. The court found it necessary that Hitchcock serve a 

significant amount of time in prison to impress upon him the severity of his actions 

and to deter him and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future. The 

court also found it important that Hitchcock be in a position to work toward 

rehabilitation. 

{¶ 5} On both Count One and Count Two, the court ordered Hitchcock to 

serve a five-year prison term, with each term to run consecutively to the other. On 

Count Three, the court ordered Hitchcock to serve a five-year term of community 

control. The court ordered this community-control term to be served consecutively 
January Term, 2019 

3

to the prison terms imposed on Counts One and Two. It reserved the authority to 

order Hitchcock to serve an additional, consecutive five-year prison term should he 

violate any of the terms or conditions of his community control. Pursuant to the 

community-control terms imposed by the court, Hitchcock was to be assessed for 

potential placement in a community-based correctional facility (“CBCF”) for 

purposes of sex-offender treatment, and the court also ordered him to pay 

restitution. The community-control terms also included a number of nonresidential 

sanctions, including outpatient mental-health and substance-abuse counseling, 

intensive supervised probation, GPS monitoring, a no-contact order, and random 

house checks. 

{¶ 6} Hitchcock appealed his sentence, arguing in part that the trial court 

erred in requiring him to serve a term of community control consecutively to the 

prison terms that it imposed. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The 

court first noted that Ohio’s courts of appeals are split on the issue whether a trial 

court may require that a term of community-control sanctions imposed on one 

felony count be served consecutively to a prison term imposed on another felony 

count. The Fifth District concluded that a trial court may do so, reasoning that R.C. 

2929.13(A) provides trial courts broad authority to impose “ ‘any sanction or 

combination of sanctions on the offender that are provided in sections 2929.14 to 

2929.18 of the Revised Code,’ ” 2017-Ohio-8255, ¶ 19. The court also emphasized 

R.C. 2929.11(A)’s directive that trial courts use the minimum sanctions that they 

determine are necessary to accomplish the purposes of felony sentencing without 

imposing an unnecessary burden on state- or local-government resources. Id. at 

¶ 20-21. 

{¶ 7} The Fifth District certified that its judgment was in conflict with both 

the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals in State v. Anderson, 2016-

Ohio-7044, 62 N.E.3d 229 (8th Dist.), and the judgment of the Twelfth District 

Court of Appeals in State v. Ervin, 2017-Ohio-1491, 89 N.E.3d 1 (12th Dist.). The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

court certified the conflict issue as “[w]hether a trial court may impose a term of 

residential or nonresidential community control sanctions on one felony count, to 

be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed on another count.” 

{¶ 8} We determined that a conflict exists, accepted the appeal, and held the 

case for our decision in State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214, 2018-Ohio-813, 103 

N.E.3d 800, in which we held that the trial court lacked statutory authority to 

impose a CBCF term as a community-control sanction to be served consecutively 

to a prison term imposed on a separate offense, id. at ¶ 13. 152 Ohio St.3d 1405, 

2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 877. After we announced our decision in Paige, we 

lifted the stay on this case and ordered briefing. 152 Ohio St.3d 1439, 2018-Ohio1600, 96 N.E.3d 296. 

II. Analysis

{¶ 9} Hitchcock argues that trial courts may impose only sentences 

authorized by statute and that they may not impose a particular sentence without 

express authority to do so. Because the Revised Code does not contain an express 

grant of authority to order the imposition of nonresidential community-control 

sanctions to be served consecutively to a prison term, Hitchcock contends, a trial 

court may not impose such a sentence. Hitchcock further argues that pursuant to 

this court’s decision in Paige, the trial court lacked the authority to order that he be 

assessed for possible placement in a CBCF following his completion of his prison 

terms. 

{¶ 10} The state responds that Hitchcock’s sentence is entirely proper and 

lawful. It notes the broad sentencing discretion granted trial courts under R.C. 

2929.13(A) and the lack of statutory authority prohibiting trial courts from 

imposing a community-control sanction for one felony to be served consecutively 

to a prison term for another felony. In addition, the state argues that the trial court 

properly ordered Hitchcock to be assessed for possible placement in a CBCF 

following completion of his prison terms. In making this argument, the state asserts 
January Term, 2019 

5

that this case is distinguishable from Paige because here, the trial court made the 

findings that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) and (c) require a trial court to make before 

imposing consecutive prison terms. 

A. Pursuant to Paige, a trial court lacks authority to order that a defendant be 

assessed for potential placement in a CBCF following completion of a prison term 

{¶ 11} Before considering the certified-conflict question, we first address 

the effect of Paige on this case. In Paige, we held that unless a statutory exception 

listed in R.C. 2929.41(A) applies to permit a CBCF term to run consecutively to a 

prison term, a trial court has no authority to order, as part of a community-control 

sentence, that a defendant be placed in a CBCF after completing a prison term 

imposed for another offense in that case. 153 Ohio St.3d 214, 2018-Ohio-813, 103 

N.E.3d 800, at ¶ 13. Because vacating the improperly imposed CBCF term in Paige

would not disturb the remainder of the validly imposed community-control 

sentence, we determined that the proper remedy in that case was to vacate only the 

improperly imposed residential sanction. Id. at ¶ 14. 

{¶ 12} As in Paige, none of the statutory exceptions listed in R.C. 

2929.41(A) apply in this case. The state argues that because the trial court in this 

case made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) and (c) before imposing 

consecutive prison terms, this case is distinguishable from Paige. However, R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4) does not permit the consecutive terms imposed in this case. That 

statute permits a trial court to require an offender to serve multiple “prison terms” 

consecutively if the court makes certain findings. Id. R.C. 2929.41(A) delineates 

three different types of incarceration: (1) a “prison term”; (2) a “jail term”; and (3) 

a “sentence of imprisonment.” Placement in a CBCF is not a prison term but, rather, 

a “sentence of imprisonment,” as this court explained in Paige: “Pursuant to R.C. 

1.05(A), ‘imprisonment’ includes a term in a CBCF. Thus, a term of confinement 

in a CBCF is a ‘sentence of imprisonment’ under R.C. 2929.41(A).” Id. at ¶ 12. 

This statement from Paige is confirmed by R.C. 2929.01(E), which specifies that a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

community-control sanction, such as a CBCF term, imposed pursuant to R.C. 

2929.16 is a “sanction that is not a prison term.” (Emphasis added.) Because a 

term of confinement in a CBCF is not a prison term, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) does not 

permit a court to impose a CBCF term consecutively to a prison term. 

{¶ 13} Pursuant to Paige, the trial court in this case had no authority to 

order, as part of a community-control sentence, that Hitchcock be placed in a CBCF 

after completing a separate prison term. Although the court in this case ordered 

that Hitchcock be assessed for potential placement in a CBCF (rather than order 

him to be placed in a CBCF, as the trial court did in Paige), the fact remains that 

there is no statutory basis for placing Hitchcock in a CBCF after his prison term is 

completed. 

B. Unless otherwise authorized by statute, a trial court may not impose 

community-control sanctions on one felony count to be served consecutively to a 

prison term imposed on another felony count

{¶ 14} We now turn to the certified-conflict question: whether a trial court 

may impose community-control sanctions on one felony count to be served 

consecutively to a prison term on another felony count. 

{¶ 15} In considering this question, it is helpful to review the relevant 

aspects of Ohio’s sentencing process. In Ohio, a court sentencing a defendant on 

multiple felony counts must initially determine the limits of its discretion. Some 

felonies involve mandatory prison terms or a specification that removes sentencing 

discretion from the trial court. R.C. 2929.14(B). 

{¶ 16} When sentencing a defendant on other felonies, such as the thirddegree felonies at issue in this case, the trial court has discretion to impose either a 

prison term under R.C. 2929.14 or community-control sanctions under R.C. 

2929.15. In making this determination, the trial court is sometimes guided by 

statutory presumptions or preferences affixed to certain felony levels. R.C. 

2929.13. The applicable statute might apply to the relevant felony either a 
January Term, 2019 

7

rebuttable presumption of a prison term, R.C. 2929.13(D), or a preference for 

community-control sanctions, R.C. 2929.13(B), or the statute might be neutral—

without a presumption or preference either way, R.C. 2929.13(C). 

{¶ 17} In exercising its discretion to impose either a prison term or 

community-control sanctions for an offense, the trial court must consider the 

overriding purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the aggravating 

and mitigating factors enumerated in R.C. 2929.12. 

{¶ 18} As this court has previously stated, in Ohio, judges have no inherent 

power to create sentences, and the only sentence that a trial judge may impose is 

that provided for by statute. State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio2089, 35 N.E.3d 512, ¶ 10, 12. 

{¶ 19} In Anderson, we explained that in 1995, the General Assembly 

fundamentally altered Ohio’s criminal sentencing system by enacting a 

comprehensive sentencing scheme in Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2, 146 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 

7136 (“S.B. 2”). Id. at ¶ 14. With this in mind, we clarified that because the 

parameters of sentencing are established by the legislature, Ohio courts may impose 

only sentences that are authorized by statute. Id. at ¶ 13. The scheme enacted by 

the General Assembly in S.B. 2 stands in contrast to a system in which trial judges 

may impose any sentence not prohibited by statute. See id.

{¶ 20} The Revised Code is silent as to whether a community-control 

sanction imposed for one felony runs concurrently with or consecutively to a prison 

term imposed for another felony. We have previously held, however, that a 

sentence consisting of community-control sanctions for one offense may run 

concurrently with a prison term imposed for a separate offense. Paige, 153 Ohio 

St.3d 214, 2018-Ohio-813, 103 N.E.3d 800, at ¶ 1. This holding in Paige is 

consistent with the scheme set forth in the Revised Code, in which trial courts are 

given express authorization to impose a prison term for one offense and 

community-control sanctions for another offense. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

{¶ 21} The general principle set forth in the Revised Code is that concurrent 

sentences are the default and consecutive sentences are the exception. This general 

principle is consistent with the rule of lenity, R.C. 2901.04(A). See State v. Elmore, 

122 Ohio St.3d 472, 2009-Ohio-3478, 912 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 38 (“The rule of lenity is 

a principle of statutory construction that provides that a court will not interpret a 

criminal statute so as to increase the penalty it imposes on a defendant if the 

intended scope of the statute is ambiguous”). R.C. 2929.41(A), for example, 

provides that prison terms, jail terms, and sentences of imprisonment “shall be 

served concurrently” unless a statutory exception provides otherwise. One of those 

exceptions is found in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which authorizes trial courts to run 

multiple prison terms consecutively if they make certain findings. 

{¶ 22} The existence of R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) further illustrates the general 

principle that consecutive sentences are the exception rather than the general rule. 

Under R.C. 2929.15(A)(1), if a trial court imposes a community-control sanction 

in addition to a mandatory prison term for a third- or fourth-degree felony offense 

of operating a vehicle while under the influence, then the community-control 

sanction must be served consecutively to the prison term. Thus, when read in the 

light of this court’s decision in Anderson, R.C. 2929.41(A) and 2929.15(A)(1) 

support the proposition that consecutive sentences may be imposed only when the 

Revised Code specifies that sentences may or must be imposed consecutively. 

{¶ 23} Although R.C. 2929.13(A) grants trial courts broad discretion to 

“impose any sanction or combination of sanctions on the offender that are provided 

in sections 2929.14 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code,” the sentencing discretion of 

trial courts is not unfettered. It is true that trial courts may impose either a prison 

term or community-control sanctions on certain felony offenses, including the ones 

at issue in this case. It is also true that the Revised Code does not prohibit trial 

courts from imposing community-control sanctions on one felony to be served 

consecutively to a prison term imposed on another felony. But this does not mean 
January Term, 2019 

9

that trial courts are authorized to impose such consecutive terms. Absent express 

statutory authorization for a trial court to impose the increased penalty of 

consecutive sentences, the trial court must follow the default rule of running the 

sentences concurrently. 

{¶ 24} Because no provision of the Revised Code authorizes trial courts to 

impose community-control sanctions on one felony count to be served 

consecutively to a prison term imposed on another felony count, we must conclude 

that trial courts may not do so. We accordingly answer the certified-conflict 

question in the negative and conclude that unless otherwise authorized by statute, a 

trial court may not impose community-control sanctions on one felony count to be 

served consecutively to a prison term imposed on another felony count. 

III. Conclusion

{¶ 25} We conclude that pursuant to our decision in Paige, there is no 

statutory basis for ordering that an offender be assessed for placement in a CBCF 

after that offender’s completion of a prison term imposed for another offense in that 

case. We also answer the certified-conflict question in the negative and conclude 

that unless otherwise authorized by statute, a trial court may not impose 

community-control sanctions on one felony count to be served consecutively to a 

prison term imposed on another felony count. We accordingly reverse the judgment 

of the Fifth District Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for 

resentencing consistent with this opinion. 

Judgment reversed 

and cause remanded. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs in judgment only. 

DONNELLY, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion. 

STEWART, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion. 

DEWINE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by 

KENNEDY and FRENCH, JJ. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

_________________ 

DONNELLY, J., concurring in judgment only. 

{¶ 26} I write separately to emphasize that we are missing a golden 

opportunity to provide clear guidance to trial courts. The lead opinion properly 

explains that a court sentencing a defendant on multiple felony counts must initially 

determine the limits of its discretion, then consider statutory presumptions and 

preferences as well as relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The lead opinion 

misses the mark, however, when it ignores the necessity for the court, while 

considering the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, to 

address a threshold question: whether the defendant is amenable to communitycontrol sanctions. 

{¶ 27} A defendant is either amenable to community-control sanctions or 

not; he or she cannot be both amenable and not amenable. If a defendant is 

amenable to community-control sanctions, then the court may retain jurisdiction 

over the defendant and place one or more of an array of restrictions on the defendant 

to effectuate Ohio’s statutory sentencing principles. See R.C. 2929.15 through 

2929.18. If the defendant is not amenable to community-control sanctions, then the 

court must impose a sentence of confinement, the length of which the court 

determines, in its discretion, as will best effectuate Ohio’s sentencing principles. 

R.C. 2929.12(A). Upon sentencing, the court’s jurisdiction over the individual 

comes to an end. State v. Gilbert, 143 Ohio St.3d 150, 2014-Ohio-4562, 35 N.E.3d 

493, ¶ 9. The defendant’s eventual reentry into society is governed by R.C. 

2967.28, the postrelease-control statute. 

{¶ 28} A review of the record in this case makes it readily apparent what 

the trial court was attempting to accomplish by imposing the sentence it did. The 

trial court, faced with appellant, Jeffery Hitchcock, a defendant who had committed 

multiple and very serious offenses, after considering the facts of the case and the 
January Term, 2019 

11 

purposes of felony sentencing, concluded that a 15-year sentence was necessary to 

protect the public, to punish Hitchcock, and to set him on a course toward 

rehabilitation. In an effort to provide the public with an even greater level of 

protection, the trial court wanted to retain jurisdiction on Count Three, so that after 

completion of Hitchcock’s prison terms, the court would be able to oversee his 

reentry into society by placing him in a community-based correctional facility. This 

oversight would have been in addition to that of the Adult Parole Authority, which 

would by law be assigned to oversee Hitchcock’s postrelease control. See R.C. 

2967.28(D) through (F). The trial court’s sentence in this case, however well 

intentioned, is not permitted under Ohio’s sentencing scheme. 

{¶ 29} After finding that a defendant is not amenable to community-control 

sanctions at a sentencing hearing, the only mechanism by which a sentencing court 

may regain jurisdiction over the defendant is by granting judicial release pursuant 

to statute. See R.C. 2929.20. If trial courts were able to oversee defendants’ reentry 

into society by placing them in community-based correctional facilities after 

completion of their prison terms, it would create an administrative quagmire. It 

would force the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to effectuate 

postrelease control while also returning the defendant to the court’s jurisdiction for 

imposition of community-control sanctions. 

{¶ 30} The statutory scheme does not allow defendants to be both amenable 

to community control and not amenable to community control. I would flatly 

inform trial courts of this and not wait until the next case to do so. Accordingly, I 

concur in judgment only. 

_________________ 

STEWART, J., concurring in judgment only.

{¶ 31} I concur only in the lead opinion’s conclusion that there is no specific 

statutory authorization for a sentencing judge to impose community-control 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

sanctions on one felony count to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed 

on another felony count. 

{¶ 32} R.C. 2929.13(A) does not support the proposition that a sentencing 

judge may order a term of community control imposed on one felony count to run 

consecutively to a prison term imposed on another felony count. R.C. 2929.13(A) 

states that “a court that imposes a sentence upon an offender for a felony may 

impose any sanction or combination of sanctions on the offender that are provided 

in sections 2929.14 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code.” The words “sentence” and 

“felony” are written in the singular. This wording is consistent with the idea that 

“[a] sentence is the sanction or combination of sanctions imposed for each separate, 

individual offense” (emphasis added), State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-

Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, paragraph one of the syllabus. Thus, R.C. 2929.13(A) 

does nothing more than authorize a sentencing judge to impose a combination of 

sanctions on a single felony count—for example, to impose both a prison term and 

a financial sanction. See, e.g., R.C. 2929.18(A) (“the court imposing a sentence 

upon an offender for a felony may sentence the offender to any financial sanction 

or combination of financial sanctions authorized under this section”). R.C. 

2929.13(A) says nothing about whether the judge may order sanctions imposed on 

one count to be served consecutively to a sanction imposed on another count. 

{¶ 33} Some, including the author of the opinion concurring in part and 

dissenting in part, have argued that one cannot serve a term of community control 

while one is serving a prison term. See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 2016-Ohio-7044, 

62 N.E.3d 229, ¶ 49 (8th Dist.) (Boyle, J., dissenting). But that is not true: in State 

v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214, 2018-Ohio-813, 103 N.E.3d 800, ¶ 1, this court 

unanimously determined that a five-year term of community control was properly 

ordered to run concurrently with a 42-month prison term. And the concurring and 

dissenting opinion’s reliance on R.C. 2929.15(A) for the proposition that a term of 
January Term, 2019 

13 

community control would be stayed anyway if an offender is serving a concurrent 

prison term is misplaced. That provision states: 

If the offender absconds or otherwise leaves the jurisdiction of the 

court in which the offender resides without obtaining permission 

from the court or the offender’s probation officer to leave the 

jurisdiction of the court, or if the offender is confined in any 

institution for the commission of any offense while under a 

community control sanction, the period of the community control 

sanction ceases to run until the offender is brought before the court 

for its further action. 

R.C. 2929.15(A)(1). 

{¶ 34} The language “while under a community control sanction” means 

that the provision applies only to offenders who are serving a term of community 

control and are then confined in any institution for having committed an offense 

while still under that community-control sanction. By stating that the term of 

community control “ceases” upon subsequent confinement for another offense, 

R.C. 2929.15(A) makes clear that it applies to offenders who are already serving a 

term of community control. Because of this, R.C. 2929.15(A) gives no support to 

the proposition that the term of community control imposed in this case would not 

start to run until a prison term imposed on another count is completed. 

{¶ 35} Finally, the argument made in the concurring and dissenting opinion 

that our holding today limits a sentencing judge’s discretion under R.C. 2929.11(A) 

ignores the well-established principle that a sentencing judge’s discretion exists 

only to the extent that it has been provided by the legislature. See State v. Bates, 

118 Ohio St.3d 174, 2008-Ohio-1983, 887 N.E.2d 328, ¶ 12 (“the authority for a 

trial court to impose sentences derives from the statutes enacted by the General 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14 

Assembly”). Of course, a sentencing judge has discretion to impose a prison term 

on one count and community control on another count. The legislature has not, 

however, specifically authorized the imposition of a term of community control on 

one count to run consecutively to a prison term imposed on another count. We 

cannot limit discretion that does not exist. 

_________________ 

DEWINE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 

{¶ 36} Under the plain terms of Ohio’s sentencing statutes, a trial court is 

authorized to impose on one count a term of imprisonment and on another count a 

term of community control that commences upon an offender’s release from prison. 

The lead opinion, however, ignores the plain language of the statutes and imposes 

new limits on a trial court’s ability to craft an appropriate sentence. As a 

consequence, I must dissent from the part of the lead opinion that concludes a trial 

judge may not impose a community-control sanction to be served following a 

prison term. 

{¶ 37} In determining whether a sentence has been authorized by statute, 

we must start with R.C. 2929.13(A). That provision provides that “a court that 

imposes a sentence upon an offender for a felony may impose any sanction or 

combination of sanctions on the offender that are provided in sections 2929.14 to 

2929.18 of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.) Here, Jeffery Hitchcock was 

convicted of violating R.C. 2907.04, a third-degree felony. For such a violation, 

R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a) authorizes the trial court to impose a prison term of up to 60 

months and R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) authorizes the trial court to impose a term of 

community-control sanctions of up to five years. In my view, when R.C. 

2929.13(A) says that a trial court may impose any sanction, it means the court may 

impose any sanction. Thus, for each of the three felony counts, the trial court was 

authorized to impose any of the sanctions authorized by R.C. 2929.14 and 2929.15. 

Accordingly, the trial court acted within its statutory authority when it imposed 60-
January Term, 2019 

15 

month prison terms for two of the offenses and a five-year community-control 

sanction for the other. 

{¶ 38} The lead opinion acknowledges that “trial courts may impose either 

a prison term or community-control sanctions on certain felony offenses, including 

the ones at issue in this case.” Lead opinion at ¶ 23. Nevertheless, the lead opinion 

concludes that the community-control sentence that Hitchcock received is 

impermissible because the trial court directed that it be served consecutively to his 

prison terms. Id. at ¶ 24. 

{¶ 39} But, of course, one cannot serve a term of “community” control 

while one is in prison. By definition, a community-control sanction “is not a prison 

term.” R.C. 2929.01(E); see State v. Anderson, 2016-Ohio-7044, 62 N.E.3d 229, 

¶ 49 (8th Dist.) (Boyle, J., dissenting) (“It is axiomatic that an offender cannot serve 

a sentence of community control sanctions while in prison” [emphasis deleted]). 

Indeed, by statute, a term of community control is stayed while an offender is in 

prison: “[I]f the offender is confined in any institution for the commission of any 

offense while under a community control sanction, the period of the community 

control sanction ceases to run until the offender is brought before the court for its 

further action.” R.C. 2929.15(A). Thus, it is irrelevant that in this case the trial 

judge explicitly labeled the sentences as consecutive. A trial judge is permitted to 

sentence an offender to prison on one count and community control on another, and 

the community-control sanction will necessarily not start to run until after the 

prison term is complete. 

{¶ 40} Today’s lead opinion is hard to reconcile with our recent decision in 

State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214, 2018-Ohio-813, 103 N.E.3d 800. There we 

dealt with a five-year sentence of community control that the sentencing judge 

ordered to run concurrently with a 42-month prison term. Id. at ¶ 3. Contrary to 

the suggestion of the second opinion concurring in judgment only, this does not 

mean that the defendant served “community control” while in prison. See opinion 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

16 

concurring in judgment only, Stewart, J., at ¶ 33. To do so would be impossible—

one cannot be “under the general control and supervision of a department of 

probation,” R.C. 2929.15(A)(2)(a), while held in prison. Rather, the clear intent of 

the sentence imposed in Paige was that the defendant serve 42 months in prison 

and after the completion of that time, serve an additional 18 months of community 

control. While the sentencing judge in Paige labeled the sentence as a concurrent 

term of community control and prison, the same result could have been achieved 

by labeling the sentence as an 18-month term of community control to be served 

consecutively to a 42-month prison term. One wonders how the lead opinion can 

conclude that such a sentence is okay if the first label is attached but not the second. 

{¶ 41} In saying that it is applying the “default rule” that sentences run 

concurrently the lead opinion plays fast and loose with statutory text. Lead opinion 

at ¶ 23. The primary source cited by the lead opinion for such a “default rule” is 

R.C. 2929.41(A). That provision states that unless certain statutory exceptions 

apply, “a prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment shall be served 

concurrently with any other prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment.” 

(Emphasis added.) By its terms, then, the lead opinion’s “default rule” should apply 

only to sentences of imprisonment, not community-control sentences that do not 

include sentences of imprisonment. 

{¶ 42} As “further illustrat[ion]” of its default rule, the lead opinion cites 

R.C. 2929.15(A)(1). Lead opinion at ¶ 22. That provision, however, simply 

authorizes a trial court in certain circumstances to impose both a prison term and a 

community-control sanction for a single driving-while-under-the-influence offense 

and specifies that in such an instance the prison term shall be served first. The 

provision does nothing more than establish a special rule allowing multiple 

punishments for a single violation and specify the order in which the punishments 

shall be served. The lead opinion’s suggestion that this provision supports its socalled default rule defies reason. 
January Term, 2019 

17 

{¶ 43} The lead opinion also looks to the rule of lenity to justify its default 

rule. Id. at ¶ 21. But it is hard to see how the rule of lenity supports a rule that 

would allow a trial court to impose consecutive prison terms but not replace one of 

those prison terms with a term of community control. 

{¶ 44} Indeed, not only is the lead opinion’s proposed rule at odds with the 

rule of lenity, but it also undercuts the guidance provided by R.C. 2929.11(A): 

A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be 

guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The 

overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public 

from future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, 

and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the 

minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those 

purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local 

government resources. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing 

court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, 

deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating 

the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the 

public, or both. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 45} Under the lead opinion’s proposed rule, however, a court would not 

always be able to impose “the minimum sanctions” necessary to protect the public 

and punish the offender. Take this case, for example: under the lead opinion, on 

remand, the trial court may not impose a community-control sanction to run after 

completion of the two consecutive 60-month prison terms, yet it would be perfectly 

okay for the court to impose a third consecutive 60-month prison term. Never mind 

that the trial judge has already found that community control, not prison, is the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

18 

minimum sanction necessary to accomplish the purposes of felony sentencing as to 

the third count. 

{¶ 46} The result reached by the lead opinion also runs contrary to our 

holding in State v. Saxon that “a judge sentencing a defendant pursuant to Ohio law 

must consider each offense individually and impose a separate sentence for each 

offense,” 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 9. Under the 

lead opinion, there would be no opportunity for the trial court in a case like this to 

consider each offense individually: once the trial court has decided to impose a 

prison term on one offense, the court would no longer be able to consider whether 

a community-control sanction (which will necessarily commence after the prison 

term) is appropriate for another offense. 

{¶ 47} The first concurrence follows the same flawed logic in arguing that 

a trial judge cannot impose a prison sentence on one count and community control 

on another count because in sentencing the defendant to prison, the judge will have 

already determined that the defendant is not amenable to community control. 

Opinion concurring in judgment only, Donnelly, J., at ¶ 27. This, of course, ignores 

both our holding in Saxon and the requirement that the judge impose the minimum 

sanctions necessary to achieve the goals of felony sentencing. See R.C. 

2929.11(A). In imposing a community-control sanction that follows a prison term, 

the trial court will necessarily consider whether a term of community control is 

appropriate after the prison term has been served. Contrary to what the concurrence 

suggests, there is nothing in our sentencing statutes that limits the ability of a trial 

court to impose such a combination of sentences. 

{¶ 48} The end result of the lead opinion today would be to limit the 

discretion of trial judges to craft sentences that minimize the amount of prison time 

that offenders must serve. There are certainly situations in which a trial judge after 

exercising his or her considered judgment might determine that rather than impose 

a lengthy prison term, a more modest prison term followed by community control 
January Term, 2019 

19 

would be appropriate. Such a period of supervision might be helpful to ensure that 

the offender continues to pursue substance-abuse or mental-health treatment, to 

maintain a stay-away order from the crime victim, to ensure that restitution is paid, 

or for a myriad of other reasons. But the result of the lead opinion would be that 

these options are off the table. The only option left for the judge who does not 

believe that a modest prison term is sufficient would be to add more prison time. 

{¶ 49} And all that is too bad. The legislature has given us a statute 

allowing a trial judge to impose the sentence—be it probation or prison—that the 

judge finds is appropriate for each offense. See R.C. 2929.13(A), 2929.14(A), and 

2929.15(A). The legislature has also directed trial judges to impose the minimum 

sanctions that are necessary to protect the public and prevent future crime. R.C. 

2929.11(A). These seem like good rules—I don’t know why this court would 

choose to make up its own. 

{¶ 50} I do agree with the lead opinion on one point though. Under our 

decision in Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214, 2018-Ohio-813, 103 N.E.3d 800, the portion 

of the community-control sanction that ordered Hitchcock to be assessed for 

possible placement in a community-based correctional facility (“CBCF”) should be 

vacated. R.C. 2929.41(A) explicitly provides that a prison term, jail term, or 

sentence of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless a specific exception 

applies. Because a sentence to a CBCF is a sentence of imprisonment and no 

specific exception applies, Hitchcock may not be sentenced to a CBCF term to be 

served consecutively to his prison terms. 

{¶ 51} Thus, I would answer the certified question in the affirmative and 

modify Hitchcock’s sentence to remove the provisions relating to the CBCF 

assessment. Because the lead opinion sees it otherwise, I respectfully dissent in 

part. 

KENNEDY and FRENCH, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 

_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

20 

 R. Kyle Witt, Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark A. Balazik, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Parks and Meade, L.L.C., and Darren L. Meade, for appellant. 

_________________