State v. Bentley, 2013 Ohio 852

Bentley was indicted in Marion County on 30 counts of sexual battery, 30 counts of rape, and 10 counts of gross sexual imposition.
He pled guilty to five counts of sexual battery; remaining charges were dismissed.
At sentencing, the court imposed 10 years imprisonment, awarding 2 years for each count, to be served consecutively.
Bentley argued the sentence violated felony-sentencing purposes and that the consecutive term lacked adequate justification.
HB 86 revisions require certain findings before imposing consecutive sentences; the court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors.
The appellate court upheld the sentence, noting the court’s findings and the circumstances of the offense supported a consecutive sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence complies with felony-sentencing purposes	Bentley contends the sentence is inconsistent with sentencing goals.	Bentley argues his conduct was less serious and should merit a lighter sentence.	No error; sentence affirmed as consistent with purposes.
Whether consecutive sentences were adequately justified	Bentley asserts trial court failed to make required indigency findings.	Bentley contends other cases had lesser sentences, implying improper severity.	Findings satisfied under HB 86; no need for talismanic phrasing; record shows appropriate analysis.

State v. Ramos, 2007-Ohio-767 (3d Dist. No. 4-06-24 (2007)) (clear and convincing standard of review for sentencing decisions)
State v. Frasca, 2012-Ohio-3746 (11th Dist. No. 2011-T-0108 (2012)) (no requirement to recite reasons for consecutive-sentence findings)
State v. Murrin, 2004-Ohio-3962 (8th Dist. No. 83714 (2004)) (no magic words required to justify consecutive sentences)
State v. Nowlin, 2012-Ohio-4923 (5th Dist. No. CT2012-0015 (2012)) (HB 86 findings requirements analyzed by courts)