State v. Chandler, 2020 Ohio 164

Jennifer Chandler was indicted on three counts of extortion; she pleaded guilty (as part of a plea agreement) to one count of extortion (third-degree felony) and one count of attempted extortion (fourth-degree felony); one count was dismissed.
After plea, the trial court continued sentencing and released Chandler on bond after counsel asked for release to demonstrate suitability for probation; the court warned that failure to appear would lead to maximum prison time.
Chandler missed her presentence-investigation interview and failed to appear for sentencing; a capias issued and she was later apprehended.
At sentencing the trial court imposed maximum terms (36 months for extortion; 18 months for attempted extortion) and ordered them consecutive for a 54-month aggregate sentence.
To support consecutive sentences the court found: consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public, not disproportionate to the conduct/danger posed, and Chandler’s criminal history showed a need to protect the public.
On appeal Chandler argued the court (1) improperly relied on her failure to appear to justify maximum and consecutive sentences and (2) failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 sentencing principles; the court reviewed under the R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by considering Chandler's failure to appear when imposing maximum sentences	State: failure to appear is a proper recidivism/behavioral factor for imposing maximum terms	Chandler: the court gave undue weight to failure to appear and failed to comply with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	Court: No error — failure to appear is an appropriate factor for maximum sentences; and absent affirmative showing otherwise, R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 are presumed considered
Whether the trial court’s reliance on failure to appear invalidates its imposition of consecutive sentences	State: the court made the statutory findings required for consecutive terms and relied on other supported factors (criminal history, public protection)	Chandler: the court may not rely on failure to appear to justify consecutive sentences	Court: Harmless error — although a court may not base consecutive terms solely on failure to appear, here the trial court made R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings supported by the record, so any improper consideration was harmless

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and standards for modifying sentences)
State v. White, 997 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio 2013) (limits on appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Cherry, 823 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio Ct. App.) (a court cannot rely on failure to appear alone to justify consecutive sentences)