State v. Forsell, 2020 Ohio 5381

Kurtis M. Forsell pleaded guilty in nine consolidated Portage County cases to 12 felonies (mainly receiving stolen property, theft, and forgery) arising from multiple thefts over several months.
The trial court initially imposed community control: 365 days in jail (141 days credit), inpatient rehab, residential placement, intensive supervision and extended general supervision, plus restitution, fines, and costs.
Forsell absconded from the residential program and later repeatedly failed to comply with supervision; he admitted violations at revocation hearings.
After multiple violations and while facing additional pending charges, the court revoked community control and imposed consecutive 12‑month prison terms on each of the 12 counts (aggregate 12 years), with credit for 635 days served.
Forsell appealed, arguing the consecutive sentences were disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct (citing the relatively low restitution amount). The trial court had made findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (including subsections (a) and (b)).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive 12‑month terms (total 12 years) are lawful and not disproportionate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: consecutive terms are warranted because defendant violated sanctions, committed new crimes while under supervision, and has a lengthy history of similar conduct	Forsell: consecutive terms are disproportionate given the low monetary harm/restitution and offenses are low‑level felonies arising from related conduct	Affirmed: trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are supported by the record and consecutive sentences are not disproportionate

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make the statutory consecutive‑sentence findings on the record but need not state reasons beyond those findings)
State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 (2003) (previous framework requiring reasons for consecutive sentences; discussion of appellate review)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (effect on sentencing statutes and trial court obligations)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (upheld requirement that sentencing factfinding may be made by judge under state procedures)
State v. Burton, 52 Ohio St.2d 21 (1977) (sentencing courts may consider pending/unadjudicated criminal activity)
United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1965) (support for considering other criminal activity in sentencing)
Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959) (permitting consideration of prior and other criminal conduct at sentencing)
United States v. Metz, 470 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1972) (indictments/pending charges may be considered by sentencing judge)