State v. Bass, 2017 Ohio 7059

Marty L. Bass was indicted on six felony counts for drug-related offenses, breaking and entering, and possession; he initially pled not guilty.
In a plea bargain, Bass pled guilty to two counts of trafficking in cocaine (both fifth-degree felonies after amendment) in exchange for dismissal of the other four counts.
At sentencing the trial court imposed the maximum 12-month prison term on each count and ordered the terms to be served consecutively.
The sentencing entry stated the court considered R.C. 2929.11–.19, the presentence report, and balanced seriousness/recidivism factors; it expressly included the statutory findings supporting consecutive sentences.
Bass appealed, arguing (1) the consecutive sentences were contrary to law because the sentencing entry omitted the required findings, and (2) the record did not support consecutive sentences.
The State conceded the written entry initially omitted statutory findings but suggested a nunc pro tunc correction; the appellate court reviewed whether the record supported the imposition of consecutive sentences and whether the sentence was contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were contrary to law	State: Sentences within statutory range; any clerical omission in entry can be corrected and do not make sentence unlawful	Bass: Sentences are contrary to law because the sentencing entry failed to include required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	Affirmed: Sentences not contrary to law; entry (pages 5–6) expressly contained required findings and trial court made findings on record
Whether record supports imposition of consecutive sentences	State: Record (hearing, PSR, consideration of statutes) supports findings that consecutive terms were necessary and not disproportionate	Bass: Record did not support consecutive terms; argued his trafficking was to support personal use and did not warrant consecutive maximums	Affirmed: Under deferential clear-and-convincing standard, the record supports the court's findings and consecutive maximums were permissibly imposed

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (articulates that an appellate court may modify or vacate a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds the record does not support the trial court's findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1959) (defines the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them into the sentencing entry; however, it need not state reasons)