State v. Jones, 2020 Ohio 149

Appellant Noah Jones, upset over a suspected $900 drug-related theft, surveilled a home and fired two shots into the occupied residence on the same evening.
The second shot struck a two-year-old in the face and another child in the leg; both suffered serious ongoing physical and psychological injuries.
Jones was indicted on multiple counts (including felonious assault and improperly discharging a firearm); he pleaded guilty to two counts of felonious assault with one- and five-year firearm specifications; remaining charges were dismissed as part of the plea.
At sentencing the trial court imposed 7 and 5 year prison terms on the felonious-assault counts, ordered them consecutive, imposed the firearm specifications, and entered an aggregate 18-year sentence.
Jones appealed, arguing the consecutive sentence was improper because the court relied in large part on conduct underlying a dismissed charge and that the court’s finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) (course of conduct/"harm so great or unusual") was not supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jones)	Held
Whether consecutive terms are improper because the court relied on conduct underlying a dismissed charge	The sentencing court may consider all conduct underlying the offense, even conduct tied to dismissed counts; the court made the required consecutive-sentence findings at hearing and in the entry.	The court erred by basing consecutive sentences in central part on the first shot charge that was dismissed, making the consecutive finding unlawful.	Affirmed. The court may consider the dismissed conduct when sentencing; the required findings were made and supported by the record.
Whether the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) finding (course of conduct / harm so great or unusual) lacked record support	The facts—two driven-by shots, deliberate watching/waiting, severe injuries to children, violent/weapon-related misdemeanor history—support that the offenses were part of a course of conduct and caused harm so great/unusual that consecutive terms were warranted.	The record does not support (c): Jones was not convicted for the first shot, so the court cannot treat the two shots as a course producing unusually great harm.	Affirmed. The court properly considered the full factual course (including the first shot) and the record supports the (c) finding; convictions are not required for the court to consider related conduct.

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (sets the appellate standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)).
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make the consecutive-sentence findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the entry).