State v. Bynum, 2019 Ohio 3139

Defendant Gary L. Bynum, the legal guardian of victim O.H., engaged in repeated sexual acts with O.H. when she was 13–14 years old over roughly a year; discovery occurred after the victim’s diary was read by Bynum’s wife.
A Shelby County grand jury indicted Bynum on 13 counts (sexual battery counts and one intimidation count).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Bynum pled guilty to two counts; the State dismissed the remaining counts.
At sentencing the court imposed 54 months on each count, to run consecutively, for an aggregate 108‑month prison term.
Bynum appealed, arguing the trial court failed to meaningfully consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and that consecutive (and allegedly maximum) sentences were an abuse of discretion.
The Third District affirmed, holding the record showed the court considered the statutory sentencing factors, made the required statutory findings for consecutive terms, and that those findings were supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 before sentencing	State: Court expressly stated it considered the purposes/principles and seriousness/recidivism factors; judgment entry repeats that.	Bynum: Court’s cursory statements at hearing and entry do not prove actual consideration of the statutory factors.	Held: Court’s on-record statement and entry that it considered the statutes was sufficient; sentences are presumptively valid and supported by the record.
Whether consecutive sentences were improper/unsupported	State: Consecutive sentences were necessary to punish and protect the public, not disproportionate, and (C)(4)(b) applied because offenses were part of a course of conduct causing great/unusual harm.	Bynum: Consecutive (and originally argued maximum) sentences were excessive for a first-time offender and unsupported by findings.	Held: Court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing and in the entry; the record (repeated abuse, victim’s age, relationship of trust, severe psychological harm) supports consecutive sentences.

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review and clear-and-convincing evidence in felony-sentence appeals)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
Arnett v. State, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (trial court discretion in weighing sentencing factors)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (trial court statement that it considered statutory factors can satisfy sentencing requirements)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (requirements for making and incorporating R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences)
State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20 (Ohio 1989) (court may consider uncharged or dismissed offenses at sentencing)