State v. Hendershot, 2017 Ohio 7822

Heath A. Hendershot pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary (first-degree felony); two other counts and a firearm specification were dismissed in exchange for the plea.
The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and, at sentencing, imposed an 8-year prison term to be served consecutively to any other sentence Hendershot had.
Hendershot was already serving a 9-year sentence from Muskingum County and had asked the court to order concurrent service with that sentence.
The sentencing hearing transcript was unavailable on appeal due to recording/technical problems; appellant did not file an App.R. 9(C) statement to replace the missing transcript.
The trial court’s written sentencing entry included findings that Hendershot’s criminal history required consecutive sentences to protect the public and that concurrent sentences would not adequately reflect seriousness.
The court of appeals affirmed, relying on the presumption of regularity because the appellant failed to provide the sentencing transcript or a statement of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing a consecutive sentence	State: sentencing entry contains R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and is valid; absent transcript, regularity presumed	Hendershot: sentence should be concurrent; trial court failed to properly make/record the required findings on the record	Affirmed: appellant failed to provide the sentencing transcript or App.R. 9(C) statement; court presumes regularity and that required findings were made; consecutive term upheld

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate findings into the sentencing entry; reasons need not be stated)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (appellant bears duty to file transcripts necessary for review)