State v. Carney, 2011 Ohio 2280

In November 2008, Carney was charged with 64 counts of pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor and one count of possession of criminal tools.
Carney pled guilty to 20 counts of pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor and the possession of criminal tools.
The trial court sentenced Carney to a total of 24 years in prison.
Carney appeals claiming two errors: sentence contrary to law/abuse of discretion and improper consecutive-sentence findings.
The court applies the Kalish two-step framework (legality and then abuse of discretion) to review the felony sentence.
The court concludes the sentence is within the statutory range and not an abuse of discretion, and '{[]}' affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carney's sentence is contrary to law or an abuse of discretion	State argues sentence complies with law.	Carney contends lack of reasons and misapplied standards.	Overruled; sentence affirmed.
Whether consecutive-sentence findings were required under Foster/Ice/Hodge	State argues no constitutional requirement for findings post-Foster.	Carney asserts required findings under 2929.14(E)(4) following Foster/Ice.	Overruled; no remand required; findings not constitutionally mandated.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008) (two-step Kalish framework for post-Foster sentencing review)
State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006) (abolished mandatory judicial fact-finding for sentences)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006) (retains statutory range with upgraded sentencing discretion)
State v. El-Berri, 2010-Ohio-146 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2010) (reflects consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (Ice did not require departing from Foster findings framework)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009) (no constitutional requirement for sequential factual findings before consecutive sentences)