State v. Bailey, 2012 Ohio 1569

Bailey was convicted and sentenced for one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and one count of possession of cocaine, both first-degree felonies, with a total aggregate sentence of 10 years to run concurrently.
An extensive 2009–2010 Springfield drug-trafficking investigation linked Bailey to directing the operation and distributing cocaine through associates including Tai Wilson and Todd Bailey.
Law enforcement found drug residue in Bailey's trash and seized a Glock .40 handgun, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and about $34,000 from Bailey's residence during a July 2010 search.
Melissa Bailey cooperated with police after an incident in which Bailey allegedly struck her and after she obtained information leading to the investigation; she later faced separate domestic-violence-related charges.
Bailey pled guilty as part of a plea agreement to engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and possession of cocaine, with the State dismissing other counts and Bailey also pleading to related domestic-violence and witness-intimidation charges in separate cases; the State agreed for concurrent sentences.
On May 11, 2011, the trial court imposed an aggregate 10-year sentence and ordered all terms to run concurrently; Bailey timely appealed challenging the sentencing as excessive and disparate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in imposing maximum ten-year terms?	State argued Bailey's sentence within statutorily allowed range and supported by his criminal history and pervasive involvement.	Bailey contends the ten-year sentences are excessive and unsupported by factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.	No; sentence within range and not an abuse of discretion.
Is Bailey's aggregate ten-year sentence disproportionate compared to co-defendants?	State maintains Bailey's greater culpability justified harsher punishment.	Bailey asserts sentencing disparity with co-defendants warrants reversal.	Not disproportionate; co-defendant plea terms and Bailey's greater role support the disparity.

State v. Barker, 2009-Ohio-3511 (Ohio App. 2010?) (trial court need not explain every sentencing factor but must follow statutory policies)
State v. Ulrich, 2011-Ohio-758 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2011) (review uses abuse-of-discretion standard after ensuring statutory compliance)
State v. Hall, 2011-Ohio-635 (2d Dist. Clark 2011) (presumed consideration of sentencing statutes in absence of explicit findings)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (requires review for consistency with R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006-Ohio-855) (sentencing framework and policy considerations)
State v. Jordan, 2010-Ohio-3456 (2d Dist. Columbiana 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard in felony sentencing)
State v. Saunders, 2011-Ohio-391 (2d Dist. Greene 2011) (weighing factors under 2929.11 and 2929.12)