State v. Crawford, 2013 Ohio 3315

Appellant Lee E. Crawford was indicted on four counts of fifth-degree felony theft for participating in a scheme to steal credit cards and purchase high-end items; he drove a rented vehicle from Philadelphia to Ohio as part of the group.
Crawford pleaded guilty to four counts of theft as part of a plea agreement on November 5, 2012.
On December 13, 2012, the trial court sentenced Crawford to the maximum 12 months on each count, ordering two of those counts to run consecutively for an aggregate two-year prison term.
Crawford appealed, arguing the trial court erred by failing to make required statutory findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, failing to find he was not amenable to community control, and by improperly imposing consecutive sentences.
The appellate court reviewed the sentencing challenge under the deferential standard of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) (post-H.B. 86) and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Crawford)	Held
Standard of review for felony sentence	R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs review; deferential standard	Kalish two-step should control (less deferential)	R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) applies; extremely deferential review to appellate court
Whether trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12	Trial court’s entry and hearing show it considered purposes, seriousness, and recidivism factors	Court failed to make required findings and did not consider amenability to community control	Trial court expressly stated it considered 2929.11/2929.12 and found community control inappropriate; holding against Crawford
Imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)	Trial court made the statutory findings (necessity to protect public/punish, proportionality, listed subsections) on the record and in entry	Consecutive sentences improper because findings not properly made	Record contains explicit on-the-record findings and written entry memorializing them; consecutive terms authorized and affirmed
Whether sentence is contrary to law or abuse of discretion	Sentence is within statutory range, postrelease control applied, and supported by record	Trial court abused discretion and didn’t meaningfully consider statutory factors	Under 2953.08(G)(2) sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; even under abuse-of-discretion review no error found

State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) (invalidated certain statutory sentencing findings and prompted post-Foster sentencing framework)
State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (established two-step appellate review for felony sentences in the immediate post-Foster era)