State v. Glover, 2024 Ohio 5195

Tommy Glover was convicted of 11 first-degree felonies (aggravated robbery and kidnapping) plus six gun specifications based on a series of armed robberies and kidnappings, causing severe emotional trauma to multiple victims but no physical harm.
The trial court imposed consecutive sentences on some convictions and concurrent on others, totaling 60 years (out of a possible 139 years), finding that statutory factors for consecutive sentences were satisfied.
The First District Court of Appeals reversed the consecutive sentences, ruling the aggregate sentence was disproportionate and unsupported by Glover's criminal history or the seriousness of his conduct, and imposed a reduced 25-year sentence.
The State appealed, arguing the appellate court exceeded its authority and failed to follow the statutory standard by substituting its own judgment for the trial court’s.
The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the appellate court’s application of the consecutive sentencing and appellate review statutes under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate courts can reverse consecutive sentences based on proportionality of aggregate sentence	State: Appellate court erred by substituting judgment, should defer to trial court unless record clearly unsupported	Glover: Appellate court properly reduced sentence as trial court's findings unsupported	Appellate courts must defer unless record clearly and convincingly does not support trial findings; focusing on aggregate sentence alone is error.
Required Findings for Consecutive Sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: Trial court made findings and record supports them	Glover: Trial court's findings (esp. criminal history and proportionality) not supported	Record supports trial court’s findings; harm/trauma justify consecutive sentences here.
Whether consideration of plea offers or comparative sentencing in other cases is proper in appellate review	State: These are not factors under the statute	Glover: Comparative analysis and plea context relevant to proportionality	Appellate review must be limited to statutory findings; other factors like plea offers irrelevant.
Scope of Appellate Review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)	State: Limited review, appellate court not to substitute its judgment	Glover: De novo review is appropriate	Appellate review is deferential; sentence can only be modified if record clearly fails to support statutory findings.

Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (explains limited role of appellate courts in reviewing trial court sentencing)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (addresses proportionality in sentencing and appellate review)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard in Ohio)