State v. Jackson, 2014 Ohio 777

Defendant-appellant Sherrick Jackson pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault, and four firearm specifications; total sentence 26 years.
Indicted December 15, 2011; charges included two first-degree felonies and corresponding firearm specifications.
Trial court merged the felonious assault counts with the attempted murder counts, and merged the firearm specifications with the attempted murder specifications; imposed consecutive terms.
Appellant argues the consecutive sentences violate the law and constitute an abuse of discretion given factors like limited prior record, responsibility admission, and similar sentences to co-defendant.
The court applies Kalish to review felony sentences: first, determine if the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law; otherwise review for abuse of discretion under R.C. 2929.11–2929.12.
The court finds the trial court failed to make the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences, constituting plain error; therefore, the consecutive sentences are reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the consecutive sentences lawfully imposed?	Jackson contends the court failed to justify consecutiveness under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).	Jackson asserts factors weigh against consecutive terms and that the court abused its discretion under Kalish.	Consecutive sentences were imposed without required findings; reversed for resentencing.
Is the aggregate sentence cruel and unusual punishment given similar offenses?	Jackson claims disproportionality compared to similar cases rendered his sentence excessive.	State argues sentences were consistent with similar offenses; co-defendant received same terms.	Sentence not grossly disproportionate; issue without merit.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (establishes two-step review: clearly contrary-to-law then abuse-of-discretion within statutory bounds)
State v. Bellard, 2013-Ohio-2956 (7th Dist. No. 12-MA-97) (addresses sufficiency of findings for consecutive sentences)
State v. Power, 2013-Ohio-4254 (7th Dist. No. 12 CO 14) (court may rely on non-verbatim rationale; need not recite verbatim statute)
State v. Jirousek, 2013-Ohio-5267 (5th Dist. No. 2013-Ohio-5267) (plain-error standard for failure to impose statutory findings)
State v. Esmail, 2013-Ohio-2165 (7th Dist. No. 11-CO-35) (insufficient to impose consecutive sentences where findings are lacking)
State v. Hairston, 2008-Ohio-2338 (Ohio) (proportionality framework for Eighth Amendment review focusing on individual sentences)
State v. Shaw, 2013-Ohio-5292 (7th Dist. No. 12-MA-95) (similar-offender comparisons for proportionality in sentencing)
State v. Armstrong, 2011-Ohio-661 (7th Dist. No. 09-MA-204) (contextualized comparators for lengthy attempted-murder sentences)
State v. Wilson, 2013-Ohio-3915 (8th Dist. No. 99331) (requires showing direct proportionality to similar offenders; burdens the defendant)