State v. Clark, 2016 Ohio 91

Clark raped another patient while at Psychiatric Emergency Services and attempted to rape a second patient after transfer to a psychiatric unit; he started a fire in a seclusion room.
Multiple psychological evaluations were conducted to determine competency and sanity; he was restored to competency and tried by jury.
Jury convicted Clark of rape, attempted rape, and arson; trial court sentenced to 11 years, 8 years, and 6 months respectively.
Rape and attempted rape sentences were ordered consecutive; arson sentence was to run concurrent with them.
Clark appeals on ten assignments of error, including sentencing issues and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The matter was remanded for further proceedings regarding jail-time credit and related statutory notices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consecutive sentences proper under RC 2929.14(C)(4)?	Clark argues lack of required findings for consecutive terms.	State contends findings were present and form/precision sufficient.	Consecutive sentences affirmed; correct analysis shown despite non-verbatim language.
Ineffective assistance for not challenging consecutive-sentencing law?	Clark asserts counsel failed to object to improper consecutive sentencing.	No reversible error since the statute was satisfied.	No ineffective-assistance error; consecutive-sentencing findings supported.
No-contact order tied to prison term valid?	Clark argues no-contact order cannot accompany same felony prison term.	State contends it was appropriate but later must be vacated.	No-contact order vacated; cannot co-apply with a concurrent prison sentence for the same offense.
Failure to calculate jail-time credit and notice?	Clark complains jail-time credit calculation and notices were improper.	Parties agreed to days and transcript reflects lack of explicit objection.	Relying on remand; jail-time credit calculation to be redetermined on remand; related notices addressed.
Compliance with RC 2929.19(B)(2) notices at sentencing?	Clark argues multiple notice defects.	State concedes some noncompliance.	Remand required to ensure proper notices; some issues sustained.

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3177) (requires discernible findings supporting consecutive sentences; not verbatim language required)
State v. Sharp, 2014-Ohio-4140 (3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-01 (2014)) (distinguishable; failure to make statutorily required findings can be reversible)
State v. Clayton, 2015-Ohio-2499 (9th Dist. Summit No. 27515) (upheld consecutive sentences when harm was great or unusual)
State v. Alfano, 2003-Ohio-237 (9th Dist. Medina No. 02CA0063-M) (upheld findings that harm was great or unusual enough to justify consecutive terms)
State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856 (Ohio Supreme Court) (structural rule on imposition of consecutive sentences (see history))