State v. Doss, 2012 Ohio 5751

Defendant Preston Doss was arrested Jan 3, 2012 after police found him unresponsive in the street near East 136th Street and Miles Avenue and charged in CR-559132 with drug possession and trafficking (PCP).
On Jan 11, 2012, officers detected PCP odor during a domestic-call response and found 15–20 rocks of crack cocaine on Doss, leading to additional charges in CR-558493 for possession and trafficking.
On Feb 22, 2012, Doss pled guilty to PCP possession (CR-559132, Count 1) and cocaine possession (CR-558493, Count 2); remaining charges were dismissed, and he was referred for CBT and psychiatric evaluation.
At sentencing (Apr 4, 2012), the court noted a lengthy 20-year criminal history and concluded Doss was not amenable to community control sanctions, denying mitigation and endorsing assessments.
The court imposed two 12-month prison terms (CR-558493 and CR-559132), to be served consecutively, and imposed up to 3 years of postrelease control.
Doss appealed, contending the maximum sentence for a fifth-degree felony amenable to community control was erroneous and that consecutive sentences were improper; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the maximum sentence for a fifth-degree felony amenable to community control was proper	Doss argues the maximum term was inappropriate for a crime amenable to community control.	State argues the sentence complies with statutory range and court findings.	No error; within statutory range and properly supported.
Whether the consecutive sentences comply with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) after HB 86	Doss contends the court failed to properly justify consecutive terms.	State contends the three-step analysis and findings were satisfied.	Consecutive sentences affirmed; proper analysis and findings meet statutory requirements.

State v. Lebron, 8th Dist. No. 97773, 2012-Ohio-4156 (8th Dist. 2012) (three-step analysis for imposing consecutive sentences)
State v. Calliens, 8th Dist. No. 97034, 2012-Ohio-703 (8th Dist. 2012) (fact-finding required before imposing consecutive sentences)
State v. Bonner, 8th Dist. No. 97747, 2012-Ohio-2931 (8th Dist. 2012) (HB 86 considerations in consecutive-sentencing analysis)
State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 1999-Ohio-110 (Ohio Supreme Court 1999) (requires actual findings to satisfy sentencing statutes)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 846 N.E.2d 470, 2006-Ohio-856 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (guidance on sentencing framework post-Foster)
State v. Reynolds, 8th Dist. No. 96412, 2012-Ohio-583 (8th Dist. 2012) (sentencing within statutory range and record support)
State v. Stone, 3d Dist. No. 9-11-39, 2012-Ohio-1895 (3d Dist. 2012) (acknowledges trial court's required sentencing analysis)