State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6387

Appellant Scott Johnson crashed while driving on a suspended license, left the scene, sped down a one-way street, and collided with a building, killing one passenger and injuring another.
His urine tested positive for marijuana, cocaine, methadone, and opiates, which the court noted during sentencing.
Johnson pleaded to aggravated vehicular homicide (amended to third-degree) and aggravated vehicular assault (amended to third-degree) after a plea agreement; counts for DUI and driving under suspension were dismissed.
Sentencing occurred January 21–22, 2010, with three years on the homicide count and two years on the assault count, to run consecutively for a total of five years; license suspension was for life on the homicide count.
At sentencing, the decedent’s sister testified, and a letter from the decedent’s girlfriend was submitted in support of leniency; Johnson apologized and contested the drug-influence claim.
Johnson challenged the consecutive sentences, arguing statutory and constitutional constraints on fact-finding and the use of hearsay and dismissed charges as sentencing factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May the court rely on hearsay at sentencing?	Johnson argues hearsay should be unreliable and objected to none.	Johnson contends hearsay should be excluded or limited at sentencing.	Hearsay admissible at sentencing; no reversible error.
Did Ice affect Foster-based consecutive-sentence framework?	Ice revived need for specific findings for consecutive terms.	Post-Ice, Foster still governs; no need for statutory findings.	Court follows Foster; Ice does not revive statutory findings for consecutive sentences.
Were the consecutive mid-range sentences proper under purposes and recidivism factors?	Consecutive terms were permissible, reflecting seriousness and recidivism.	Consecutive sentences may be excessive or not properly tied to factors.	Consecutive mid-range sentences are not clearly or convincingly contrary to law; within trial court discretion.

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (eliminates need for special-fact findings for consecutive sentences)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (addresses Apprendi/Blakely applicability to consecutive sentencing; states may have fact-finding before imposing consecutive terms)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (framework for reviewing sentencing under clearly and convincingly contrary to law)
State v. Williams, 11th Dist. Nos. 2007-L-131, 2007-L-137, 2008-Ohio-2122 (Ohio) (sentencing may rely on information not admissible at trial; hearsay allowed for background information)
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (sexual predator hearings; reliable hearsay admissible in certain sentencing contexts)