State v. Johnson, 2021 Ohio 2254

Timothy E. Johnson sold a fentanyl/heroin mixture on Nov. 26, 2017; the purchaser died from the overdose. Johnson was indicted on multiple counts and pleaded guilty to corrupting another with drugs (R.C. 2925.02(A)(3)), a second-degree felony.
At sentencing (July 21, 2020) Johnson was already serving 24 months for a separate 2018 robbery conviction.
The trial court imposed the mandatory 4-year prison term for the drug conviction and ordered it to run consecutively to the robbery sentence; the court discussed sentencing factors on the record but did not expressly cite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or recite the statutory consecutive-sentence findings in its written entry.
Johnson appealed, arguing the consecutive sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to make the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
The appellate court found the record showed the trial court made the necessary findings at the hearing (necessity, proportionality, and applicability of subsection (a)/(b)/(c)), affirmed the sentence, but remanded for the trial court to correct the written entry via a nunc pro tunc order to include the statutory findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lawfully imposed consecutive sentences without the statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: The court’s oral statements and consideration of recidivism and seriousness factors show the required findings were made at the hearing, so the consecutive sentence is lawful	Johnson: No R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were made or included in the sentencing entry, so consecutive sentence is contrary to law	Court: Oral findings at sentencing sufficiently show necessity, proportionality, and subsection (c) applicability; sentence affirmed, but remand for nunc pro tunc entry to include the findings

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing and in journal entry; word-for-word statutory language not required but record must show proper analysis)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review standard for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (2018) (court must make three specific findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at sentencing and in the entry)
State v. Elmore, 60 N.E.3d 794 (7th Dist. 2016) (examining when sentencing-court remarks suffice to show R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; appellate courts may be deferential but require discernible proportionality analysis)