State v. Hartman, 2014 Ohio 5718

On April 16, 2013, Marlin Hartman and two co-defendants engaged in an altercation that culminated in a shooting that left victim Zachary Willis paralyzed. Co-defendant Bailey fired the shots; Hartman fled, helped hide the vehicle and two firearms.
Hartman was indicted for complicity to commit attempted murder (later dismissed in plea deal), complicity to commit felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11), and tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12), with a firearm specification.
Hartman pleaded guilty to complicity to commit felonious assault, tampering with evidence, and a firearm specification.
The trial court imposed 7 years for second-degree felony felonious assault, a mandatory 3-year firearm specification, and 30 months for third-degree tampering with evidence, ordered consecutively for a total of 12½ years.
Hartman appealed, arguing the trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors and failed to make the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing for consecutive terms.
The Seventh District affirmed, finding the court had considered the statutory sentencing factors and made the necessary consecutive-sentence findings at the hearing and in the entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing sentence	State: Court complied with statutory sentencing scheme and properly considered factors	Hartman: Court’s record lacks indication it weighed seriousness/recidivism factors or mitigators (provocation, remorse, lack of prior adjudications)	Held: Entry and hearing show the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; no error under Kalish review framework
Whether the sentences were within statutory range	State: Sentences are permissible and lawful	Hartman: Imposition may be excessive absent consideration of mitigating factors	Held: Individual terms (7 years; 30 months; 3-year spec) fall within statutory ranges; review for abuse of discretion found no reversible error
Whether the court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings at the sentencing hearing	State: Court made required findings at hearing and incorporated them into the entry	Hartman: Court’s entry, not the transcript, supplies most findings — so findings may be deficient under Bonnell	Held: Under Bonnell, findings must appear in the hearing record; here transcript and entry together show the required three findings were made at the hearing (necessity to punish/protect, not disproportionate, and (b) offenses were part of one course of conduct with great/unusual harm); consecutive sentences affirmed

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (establishes two-step standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (requires R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings to be made at the sentencing hearing and incorporated into the entry)