State v. Hammond, 2014 Ohio 4673

Hammond, juvenile at the time of the offenses, was charged in January 2012 in a ten-count indictment and bound over to the common pleas court.
He pleaded guilty to two amended counts of felonious assault with a three-year firearm specification attached to each count; the firearm specifications merged, and the base sentences were seven years on one count and eight years on the other, totaling 18 years, to be served consecutively.
Hammond appealed claiming the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without the required findings; on remand, the trial court again sentenced him to 18 years, this time with explicit findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
The trial court articulated specific findings: seven years on count two plus three-year firearm spec consecutive to that; eight years on count four with a merged three-year firearm spec; and multiple findings that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and reflect the seriousness of the conduct.
Hammond raised three assignments of error: (1) failure to consider youth as a mitigating factor; (2) sentence contrary to law; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to preserve sentencing errors.
The appellate court affirmed, upholding the sentence and rejecting each assigned error after reviewing the trial court’s compliance with sentencing statutes and case law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hammond’s youth was properly considered as a mitigating factor.	State argues Long does not require explicit youth consideration for this non-LWOP sentence.	Hammond contends the court erred by not explicitly considering his youth as a mitigating factor.	First assignment overruled; youth need not be explicitly discussed to satisfy law.
Whether the sentence is contrary to law given the court’s findings under 2929.11/2929.12.	State asserts the court properly applied the statutory factors and made the necessary findings.	Hammond argues the court failed to sufficiently discuss consistency/proportionality and other factors.	Second assignment overruled; court properly considered and applied the sentencing statutes.
Whether any ineffective assistance of counsel occurred due to preservation issues.	State contends no prejudice from preservation issues given the record and lack of favorable sentences for comparators.	Hammond asserts counsel failed to preserve sentencing issues that affected outcome.	Third assignment overruled; no prejudice established under Strickland.
Whether the court’s overall application of the sentencing framework was consistent with case law.	State maintains the court weighed statutory factors and reflected the purposes of sentencing.	Hammond asserts lack of explicit consistency/proportionality discussion.	Second assignment already addressed; overall application found proper; no reversible error.

State v. Long, 138 Ohio St.3d 478 (2014-Ohio-849) (juvenile mitigating factor not required for non-LWOP cases; life-without-parole framework recognized)