State v. Hettmansperger, 2014 Ohio 4306

On September 3, 2012, appellant Nickolaus Hettmansperger shot Joseph Hunt during an altercation and later threw the firearm into the Ashtabula River.
Appellant was indicted on two counts of felonious assault (with firearm specs) and one count of tampering with evidence; he pled guilty to aggravated assault (R.C. 2903.12(A)(2), fourth-degree felony) and tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), third-degree felony).
At plea and sentencing hearings appellant insisted he acted in self-defense and denied a drug-transaction motive; state presented facts supporting use of a firearm and appellant’s disposal of the gun.
At sentencing the court imposed consecutive 18-month terms on each conviction (total 36 months), ordered consecutive to an existing 9-month sentence, and stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors.
The court specifically found appellant has an extensive criminal history, a pattern of drug abuse, that the victim suffered serious physical harm, and that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public.
Appellant appealed, arguing the 36-month consecutive sentence was excessive and that the court erred in imposing consecutive maximum sentences despite R.C. 2929.12 factors favoring a lesser term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hettmansperger)	Held
Whether the trial court permissibly imposed consecutive sentences	Court properly found consecutive terms necessary to protect the public based on defendant’s extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the conduct	Consecutive sentences are excessive and not supported by R.C. 2929.12 factors; court should have imposed concurrent or lesser terms	Affirmed: trial court made the required findings and properly imposed consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)
Whether the overall 36-month sentence is excessive / contrary to purposes of R.C. 2929.11	Sentence is appropriate given serious physical harm to victim, firearm use, defendant’s criminal history and drug-related pattern	Sentence is excessive, not the minimum sanction and not necessary to protect the public	Affirmed: court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors; sentence not contrary to law nor unsupported by record

State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (sets limits on sentencing court discretion post-Foster)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (invalidated portions of Ohio sentencing statutes and altered sentencing review)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (articulated two-step appellate review for felony sentences)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (upheld trial-court fact-finding for consecutive sentences)