State v. Bell, 2017 Ohio 1531

Michael A. Bell pled guilty as part of a global plea: to one count of Sexual Battery (third-degree felony) arising from offenses against one daughter, and one count of Gross Sexual Imposition (fourth-degree felony) arising from offenses against another daughter; other counts were dismissed.
Sentencing occurred August 22, 2016; the court heard victim-impact letters, victim and family statements, counsel arguments, Bell’s statement, and a PSI.
Trial court imposed maximum sentences on each count (60 months for sexual battery; 18 months for GSI) and ordered them to run consecutively for an aggregate 78 months.
Bell appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to perform the required three-part analysis under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when imposing consecutive sentences, and (2) the court erred by imposing maximum sentences.
The appellate court reviewed the sentence under R.C. 2953.08 and Marcum’s clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for modifying/vacating felony sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were lawful under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: trial court made the statutory findings at sentencing and in the entry; record supports findings.	Bell: court failed to engage in the requisite three-part analysis and/or make required findings.	Affirmed — court made the necessary findings on the record that consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public or to punish, were not disproportionate, and additionally found the harm was "so great or unusual" (C)(4)(b).
Whether imposition of maximum sentences was lawful	State: sentence within statutory range and court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors; record supports maximum terms.	Bell: court abused discretion by imposing maximum sentences.	Affirmed — maximum terms are within the statutory range; the record shows the court considered purposes/principles and seriousness/recidivism factors; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (establishes appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08 post-Foster)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing; reasons not required)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (severed statutory mandatory fact-finding; courts retain discretion to impose sentences within statutory ranges)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (discusses appellate review of sentences post-Foster)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)