State v. Clark, 2024 Ohio 5717

Jimmy Clark pled guilty to ten drug-related felonies in Ross County, Ohio.
The parties jointly recommended a 6-9 year aggregate sentence, contingent on Clark's good behavior prior to sentencing.
Clark tested positive for drugs before sentencing, prompting the court to reschedule the hearing.
Clark was sentenced to various terms, with most sentences to run concurrently, except for Count Ten, which was to run consecutive to three other counts, resulting in a 7-10 year aggregate sentence.
Clark appealed, arguing the trial court failed to make required findings for consecutive sentences and did not properly document these findings in the sentencing entry.
The State argued the sentence was "negotiated" and thus unreviewable or, alternatively, that sufficient findings were made at the hearing.

Issue	Clark's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Did the trial court fail to properly make and document consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)?	The court "glossed over" proportionality findings at the hearing and omitted required findings in the sentencing entry; consecutive sentences are thus contrary to law.	Sentence was a "negotiated" and thus not subject to appeal, or the court's oral findings were sufficient and any error is clerical and can be corrected.	The court made sufficient findings at the hearing; omission in entry was clerical. Judgment affirmed but remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to correct sentencing entry.

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (failure to include consecutive sentence findings in the entry is clerical error, not reversible; may be fixed nunc pro tunc)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (appellate review standard for felony sentencing)
State v. Plymale, 2016-Ohio-3340 (affirmed that stating sentences are "not disproportionate" can be sufficient when the other required findings are made)