State v. Franklin, 2019 Ohio 3759

Nicholas Franklin and two codefendants were indicted for crimes arising from an aggravated burglary that resulted in C.F.’s death; codefendant Hentges is Nicholas’s mother.
Nicholas pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and aggravated burglary; remaining counts were nolled.
At sentencing defense argued Nicholas was a minor participant, influenced by his mother, had no felony record, and expressed remorse; defense requested a 3-year term.
The state presented evidence that witnesses saw Nicholas strike the victim, breaking ribs and rupturing the spleen, and urged that his conduct contributed directly to the death.
The trial court imposed consecutive nine-year terms on each count (total 18 years), finding the crimes extremely violent and that consecutive terms were warranted.
Nicholas appealed, arguing the record did not support consecutive maximum terms; the appellate majority affirmed while one judge dissented and would have ordered concurrent terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and whether the record supports those findings	The State argued the record supports consecutive terms because the offenses were extremely violent, caused great/unusual harm, and consecutive sentences were necessary to punish and protect the public	Franklin argued the record lacked facts supporting consecutive sentences: he had no felony history, was remorseful, was a minor participant influenced by his mother, and the offenses arose from a single episode so a single term suffices	Affirmed: the appellate court held the record supports the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and under the deferential R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard the consecutive 18-year sentence stands

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (sets standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make the statutory findings for consecutive sentences and incorporate them into the sentence entry; stating reasons on the record is not required)
State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (trial court must consider statutory sentencing factors)
State v. Morris, 73 N.E.3d 1010 (2016) (consecutive sentences are contrary to law if the trial court fails to make the required findings)