State v. Friend, 2016 Ohio 5868

Defendant John P. Friend III pled guilty in two consolidated Montgomery County cases: sexual-abuse offenses (two counts rape of a child under 10; two counts gross sexual imposition of a child under 13) and two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Several other counts were dismissed.
Sexual-abuse conduct involved repeated sexual acts on his eight‑year‑old stepson over about a year, forcing the child to drink urine, threats to cut off the child’s penis, and abuse while the mother was absent.
After discovery of the abuse, Friend solicited/arranged for a “hit” on the child, the child’s father, and the prosecutor; he provided directions, photos, schedules and agreed to pay a hit man.
Sentences imposed: rapes — 15 years to life each (mandatory); gross sexual imposition — 5 years each (max); conspiracy counts — 11 years each (max). Some counts ran concurrently and others consecutively, producing an aggregate 31‑year term and Tier III sex‑offender classification.
Friend appealed, arguing the trial court erred by imposing maximum and consecutive sentences. The court affirmed the sentences but remanded for nunc pro tunc correction of the judgment entries to incorporate the statutory consecutive‑sentence findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether maximum sentences were supported by the record	State argued court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and facts warranted substantial/max sentences	Friend argued not every serious offense justifies maximums; trial court’s stated reasoning was insufficient	Court held maximums (where applicable) were supported: record showed extreme harm, position of trust, planning to murder witnesses; sentence not clearly and convincingly unsupported
Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed	State argued trial court made required findings and consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and reflect seriousness	Friend argued the court misweighed mitigating factors (military service, lack of record, remorse) and findings insufficient	Court held consecutive sentences were supported by the record; statutory findings were made at sentencing, but final entries failed to incorporate them, so remand for nunc pro tunc corrections was required
Standard of review / jurisdiction to review maximum sentences	State argued possible limits on appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(A) for appeals of maximums	Friend relied on Marcum and R.C. 2953.08 to challenge sentences under the clear‑and‑convincing standard	Court applied Marcum/R.C. 2953.08(G) clear‑and‑convincing standard and declined to find lack of jurisdiction; sentence review affirmed

State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range)
State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial courts must consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 when imposing sentence)
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (sentencing statutory policies and consideration requirements)
State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make statutory consecutive‑sentence findings and incorporate them into the sentencing entry)