State v. Bray, 2017 Ohio 118

In October 2015 Bray (age 18) was charged with aggravated burglary (with firearm spec); in December 2015 he was indicted for attempted murder (with firearm spec), felonious assault, and tampering; the cases were later consolidated.
On October 2, 2015 Bray and a co-defendant broke into an occupied residence; police responded and, after announcing themselves, officer Cantrell saw Bray and the co-defendant removing a TV; Bray fired multiple rounds at Cantrell, who took evasive action.
Bray had no prior adult felony convictions but had multiple juvenile adjudications for violent offenses; at the time of sentencing he also had an outstanding warrant for a non-related adult matter.
On February 12, 2016 Bray pled guilty to attempted murder (with firearm specification) and aggravated burglary; other counts/specs were dismissed as part of the plea.
The trial court imposed 11 years for attempted murder, 3 years for the firearm specification, and 6 years for aggravated burglary, ordering the attempted-murder term consecutive to the burglary term for a total of 20 years.
Bray appealed only in the attempted-murder case number; the court of appeals limited review to that conviction/sentence (could not review the burglary case separately because no notice of appeal was filed for it).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposition of the maximum (11-year) term for attempted murder was improper	State argued sentence within statutory range and court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors	Bray argued maximum sentence was arbitrary given no prior adult felonies, juvenile history emphasis, and PSI indicating low recidivism	Court affirmed: trial court considered statutory factors and record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support maximum term
Whether consecutive sentences (attempted murder consecutive to burglary) were an abuse of discretion	State argued consecutive terms justified by seriousness/unusual harm and offender's history; trial court made required statutory findings	Bray argued PSI and risk assessment supported community control and minimized need for consecutive terms; emphasized juvenile-only record	Court affirmed: findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) and (c) supported consecutive terms; record review deferential under Marcum
Whether appellate jurisdiction permitted review of the burglary sentence	State urged limitation to appealed case number	Bray had not filed notice of appeal for burglary case	Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review judgments in the unappealed burglary case; addressed only attempted-murder matter

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences: vacate/modify only if record clearly and convincingly does not support sentence or sentence is contrary to law)
State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio 2013) (trial courts have discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range and need not make particular findings to impose maximum sentence)
Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of "clear and convincing" evidence used in appellate review of sentencing)