State v. Blanton, 2012 Ohio 6082

Ronald Blanton, a former police officer, was charged with tampering with evidence (3rd degree) and theft in office (5th degree).
Blanton pled no contest with a stipulation that facts sufficient for guilt were provided on both counts.
Trial court sentenced Blanton to 3 years for tampering and 4 years of community control for theft.
On appeal, Blanton challenges (1) court costs without advising on possible community service, (2) failure to consider a presentence investigation report before imposing community control, and (3) the tampering sentence as unduly harsh or inconsistent.
Court declares the costs and presentence-report issues clearly and convincingly contrary to law, but upholds the tampering sentence; remands for resentencing on costs and theft conviction issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Court costs advisory error during sentencing	Blanton	Blanton	Costs portion reversed; error then remanded for resentencing.
Failure to consider presentence investigation before community control	Blanton	Blanton	Presentence report consideration required; portion reversed and remanded.
Tampering with evidence sentence	Blanton	Blanton	Not clearly/convincingly contrary to law; no abuse of discretion.

Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008) (two-step review for felony sentences; compliance with sentencing statutes)
State v. Smith, 131 Ohio St.3d 297 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012) (authority on appellate review of court costs and community service)
Bailey, 4th Dist. No. 11CA7, 2011-Ohio-6526 (Ohio Fourth Dist. 2011) (consistency principle in sentencing; not require identical sentences)
Ward, 4th Dist. No. 07CA9, 2008-Ohio-2222 (Ohio Fourth Dist. 2008) (sentencing consistency and individual case differences)
Aguirre, 4th Dist. No. 03CA5, 2003-Ohio-4909 (Ohio Fourth Dist. 2003) (case-specific differences in sentencing)
Marcum, 2012-Ohio-572 (Ohio Fourth Dist. 2012) (clarifies that misstatement of counts at sentencing does not alone show abuse of discretion)