State v. Childers, 2015 Ohio 4881

Childers pleaded guilty to two burglary counts (second-degree) and four breaking and entering counts (fifth-degree), resulting in an aggregate 16-year prison term and restitution totaling $2,670.
The plea hearing and judgment entry did not reveal any sentencing agreement; at sentencing the State recommended 16 years, which the defense initially appeared to accept.
Sentencing imposed eight years on each burglary count consecutively, and 12 months on each breaking-and-entering count concurrent with each other and with the burglaries.
The trial court explicitly stated it would apply consecutive-sentence findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and those findings were included in the written judgment entry.
Defendant argued the record lacked evidence to support the required RC 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences, and the court sustained this challenge, remanding for resentencing.
The court noted the State’s discovery materials could have informed the findings, but found the record insufficient to support the necessary findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the consecutive sentences were proper under RC 2929.14(C)(4).	Childers argued the record lacks evidence for the required findings.	Childers contends there was evidence or argument to support the findings; record was insufficient.	Consecutive sentences improper; record does not support findings; remanded for resentencing.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing mitigating factors.	Childers asserts ineffective assistance for failure to argue mitigating factors.	Childers contends counsel failed to present mitigating factors at sentencing.	Moot, given reversal and remand for resentencing.

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (consecutive-sentencing findings not required in exact wording; must be discernible from record)
State v. Bever, 4th Dist. Washington No. 13CA21 (2014) (three-step analysis for RC 2929.14(C)(4) findings; record must support findings)
State v. Black, 4th Dist. Ross No. 12CA3327 (2013) (consecutive-sentence findings required; record review standard)
State v. Clay, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 11CA23 (2013) (analysis framework for consecutive sentences)
State v. Howze, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 13AP–386, 13AP–387 (2013) (consecutive-sentencing considerations)
State v. Adams, 2nd Dist. Clark No. 2014-CA-13 (2015) (two avenues to challenge consecutive sentences)
State v. Nia, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99387 (2013) (record must support RC 2929.14(C)(4) findings; separate and distinct findings)
State v. Robinson, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 13CA18 (2015) (addressing whether merits can be reviewed when sentence not clearly agreed)