State v. Haynes, 2022 Ohio 4464

Defendant Robert C. Haynes pleaded guilty to four counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (third-degree felonies) and one count of attempted sexual battery (fourth-degree felony) involving a 15-year-old victim; state presented factual basis of a coach–student relationship, provision of alcohol, and multiple sexual acts.
Court accepted pleas after Crim.R. 11 colloquy, ordered PSI and psychological evaluation, and received victim impact statement.
At sentencing the court stated it considered the PSI, evaluations, letters, statements, and "all aspects" of R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, 2929.13, and 2929.14, and made on-the-record findings.
Sentences imposed: 48 months on each counts 1–4 and 12 months on count 5; counts 1–3 ordered consecutive to each other; counts 4 and 5 concurrent to count 3, producing a 144-month aggregate term.
Haynes appealed raising three assignments of error: (1) sentence contrary to law / failure to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; (2) trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences; (3) R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is unconstitutional as applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Haynes’ sentence is "contrary to law" for failing to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	State: Trial court satisfied its duty by stating it considered statutory factors and imposed lawful individual sentences	Haynes: Aggregate 12-year term is excessive and court did not properly apply/consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 or ensure sentence promotes rehabilitation	Court: No clear-and-convincing showing. 2929.11/2929.12 apply to individual sentences; court expressly said it considered them; Jones precludes de novo appellate reweighing
Whether consecutive sentences were improper	State: Court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing and in entry; record supports findings	Haynes: Required findings not supported by record and facts emphasized by court don’t justify 12-year aggregate	Court: Findings were made and incorporated in the entry; record contains evidence supporting consecutive-term findings; no error
Whether R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is unconstitutional as applied (denies meaningful appellate review)	State: Statute is constitutional; Haynes failed to preserve/ascribe facts showing unconstitutional application	Haynes: Jones interpretation forecloses appellate review of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 consideration, denying Article IV review rights	Court: As-applied challenge not established (no present facts showing unconstitutionality); waiver/avoidance doctrines apply; decline to reach merits

Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (sets standard for appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (definition of "clear and convincing" standard)
Foster v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470 (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 are general guidance; no mandated judicial fact-finding)
Gwynne v. State, 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169 (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 apply to individual sentences)
Saxon v. State, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824 (definition of "sentence" as sanction for each individual offense)
Jones v. State, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649 (limits appellate reweighing of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; interpreted R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659 (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them into entry; no requirement to state reasons)
Talty v. State, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio-4888, 814 N.E.2d 1201 (courts should avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings)
Awan v. State, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 489 N.E.2d 277 (failure to raise constitutional challenge at trial constitutes waiver)
Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165 (burden for as-applied constitutional challenge: present clear facts showing unconstitutionality)