State v. Anderson, 2012 Ohio 3245

Anderson was convicted after a jury trial of 108 felony counts including corruption of a minor and promoting prostitution.
The trial court initially sentenced Anderson to a combination of definite and indefinite terms, with indefinite terms running 4 to 25 years and the overall aggregate 79 to 100 years.
The federal district court vacated the original sentence and Anderson’s resentencing occurred on December 8, 2010, reimposing the same overall structure.
On appeal, Anderson argues the corruption-of-a-minor sentence (2–10 years) is unlawful under pre-1996 R.C. 2929.11, that the promoting-prostitution conviction was time-barred, that non-minimum and maximum terms were improper under Blakely, that consecutive sentences lacked required findings, and that the aggregate sentence is cruel and unusual.
The Fourth District Court of Appeals sustains the first assignment of error (vacating the corruption-of-a-minor sentence), but sustains none of the other assignments and remands for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the corruption-of-a-minor sentence lawful under pre-1996 law?	Anderson	State	Indefinite 2–10 years was unlawful; must be a definite term (1–2 years) under pre-1996 statute.
Is the promoting prostitution conviction time-barred?	Anderson	State	Waived; not raised pre-trial, so defenses waived.
Were non-minimum and maximum sentences permissible post-Foster/Blakely?	Anderson	State	Yes; resentencing within statutory range allowed without specific findings.
Were consecutive sentences properly justified without Findings under 2929.14?	Anderson	State	Consecutive sentences valid; Ice/Foster framework did not require renewed findings.
Is the overall sentence cruel and unusual?	Anderson	State	Aggregate term not disproportionate; individual sentences considered; no Eighth Amendment violation.

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (severed unconstitutional sentencing findings; trial courts have discretion within statutory ranges)
State v. Elmore, 122 Ohio St.3d 472 (2009-Ohio-3478) (re-sentencing pre-Foster within statutory range does not violate constitutional rights)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (guidelines for reviewing felony sentences; focus on within-range and statutory factors)
State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 (2008-Ohio-2338) (proportionality concerns focus on individual sentences, not aggregate terms)
State v. Mickens, 2009-Ohio-2554 (10th Dist.) (vacated sentences; federal vacatur treated as if original sentence never existed; supports challenge to pre-Foster sentences)