State v. Bellard, 2013 Ohio 2956

Defendant Fabian Bellard pleaded guilty to: aggravated robbery (F1) with a firearm specification, two counts of having weapons while under disability (F3), and carrying a concealed weapon (F4).
Plea agreement: defendant pled guilty to all counts; State agreed to recommend an aggregate 6-year prison term; court warned it was not bound by the recommendation.
At sentencing the State recommended 6 years; defendant gave a brief allocution and waived a PSI; court reviewed criminal history and seriousness factors.
Trial court imposed an 8-year aggregate sentence: 4 years for aggravated robbery; concurrent 1-year terms for the weapons offenses and CCW, ordered consecutive to the robbery count; mandatory 3-year firearm spec consecutive to other terms; 5 years post-release control.
On appeal Bellard challenged only the sentence, arguing it was inconsistent with Ohio sentencing statutes (R.C. 2929.11–.19) and that the court failed to make required findings for consecutive sentences under amended R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
The Seventh District held the aggregate sentence was within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion, but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make the specific findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence complied with applicable law and sentencing statutes	State: court complied; sentence within statutory range and considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	Bellard: sentence contrary to R.C. 2929.11–.19 and Kalish standard	Court: sentence within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion on second prong; but first-prong error on consecutive findings
Whether the trial court made required findings for consecutive terms under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: general remarks and entry suffice; court considered factors	Bellard: trial court failed to make the statutory findings on the record	Held: trial court did not make the necessary specific findings; remand for resentencing
Whether failing to follow the jointly recommended sentence was an abuse of discretion	State: court warned defendant it could exceed recommendation; discretion to impose greater term	Bellard: imposing higher sentence was unreasonable given recommendation	Held: not an abuse—court forewarned defendant and record supports sentencing choice
Whether the record permitted meaningful appellate review of consecutive-sentence rationale	State: sentencing remarks show reasons	Bellard: record insufficient to show R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis	Held: record insufficient—no clear findings on necessity, proportionality, and one of (a)-(c); reversal limited to resentencing

State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (plurality test for appellate review of felony sentences: first review for legality, then for abuse of discretion)
State v. Buchanan, 796 N.E.2d 1003 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (trial court may impose a sentence greater than prosecutor recommendation if defendant was forewarned)