State v. J.L.H., 2019 Ohio 4999

Victim was appellant's 13-year-old step-granddaughter who reported repeated sexual contact in May 2018, including alleged penile-vaginal penetration and digital/genital contact.
Appellant admitted some sexual contact to family but denied penetration.
Indictment (June 27, 2018): four counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition; guilty plea (March 15, 2019) to two counts of the lesser-included sexual battery and one count of gross sexual imposition.
Sentencing (May 7, 2019): five years on each sexual-battery count and one year on the GSI count, ordered consecutively for a total of 11 years.
On appeal, appellant challenged (1) imposition of maximum sentences and (2) imposition/adequacy of consecutive-sentence findings; trial court made oral findings at sentencing but the written entry did not explicitly incorporate the statutory findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (J.L.H.)	Held
Whether maximum sentences on sexual-battery counts were lawful	Trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and could impose maximum based on recidivism risk	No evidence supported a finding of likelihood of recidivism; maximums were unsupported	Affirmed: record supports recidivism findings and maximum sentences were within statutory range and not contrary to law
Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed and recorded	Consecutive terms were necessary, not disproportionate, and the offenses were part of a course of conduct; oral findings satisfy R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Trial court failed to make the required statutory (C)(4)(a)-(c) finding on the record and failed to incorporate findings into the judgment entry	Partially affirmed: oral findings satisfy R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (court relied on (b)), but remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry because the written judgment failed to incorporate those findings

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and review for clear-and-convincing lack of support)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (trial court's broad discretion in weighing R.C. 2929.12 factors)
State v. Hayden, 96 Ohio St.3d 211 (2002) (recognition of high recidivism risk among sex offenders)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (requirement that consecutive-sentence findings appear in the record and be incorporated into the sentencing entry; no talismanic language required)
State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436 (2001) (plain-error review when no objection to sentence at trial)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain-error test for criminal cases)
Polick v. 101 Ohio App.3d 428 (1995) (noting no requirement that trial court articulate R.C. 2929.12 considerations verbatim)