State v. Bell, 2017 Ohio 2621

Defendant Michael A. Bell pled guilty as part of a global plea to one count of Sexual Battery (third-degree felony) arising from abuse of one daughter (CR2015-0246) and one count of Gross Sexual Imposition (fourth-degree felony) arising from abuse of his other daughter (CR2016-0102); other counts were dismissed.
Victims and their mother submitted victim-impact letters; the court reviewed a presentence investigation and heard allocution and counsel arguments.
At sentencing the court imposed maximum terms on each count and ordered the 18‑month (fourth-degree) term consecutive to the 60‑month (third-degree) term, for an aggregate 78‑month prison sentence.
Bell appealed, challenging (1) the imposition of consecutive sentences for failure to make required statutory findings, and (2) imposition of maximum sentences.
The Fifth District reviewed the sentence under R.C. 2953.08 and the Ohio Supreme Court’s Marcum standard (clear-and-convincing review of record support for required findings).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making the required statutory findings	State: trial court made the required findings at hearing and in entry; Bonnell permits non‑verbatim language so long as findings are discernible	Bell: court failed to engage in the three‑part R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis and did not find any of the statutory (a)–(c) factors	Court upheld consecutive sentences — found the record clearly and convincingly supports that the court found (necessity to protect/punish), non‑disproportionality, and factor (b) (course of conduct/seriousness) at sentencing and in the entry
Whether the trial court erred by imposing maximum sentences	State: sentence was within statutory range and court considered R.C. 2929.11 & 2929.12 factors; no requirement to recite each factor	Bell: maximum sentences were excessive and the court failed to properly weigh statutory factors	Court held maximum terms were within statutory range and the record shows the court considered purposes/principles and seriousness/recidivism factors; sentence not contrary to law

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (clarifies appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08 — clear-and-convincing review of record support)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and include them in the entry; reasons need not be stated verbatim)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (severed portions of R.C. 2929.14 requiring judicial fact‑finding; courts must still consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (explains post‑Foster sentencing review and need to consider 2929.11/2929.12)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (on the interplay of sentencing statutes and court’s duty to consider statutory factors)