State v. Jordan, 2017 Ohio 5827

Defendant Raymond T. Jordan pled guilty to four counts of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) based on separate breast and vaginal touching of two girls (H.J., age 11; H.T., age 12) during a sleepover; two rape counts were dismissed under the plea agreement.
Each count was a felony of the third degree; trial court sentenced Jordan to 48 months on each count, ordered the four sentences served consecutively for an aggregate 192 months (16 years).
The trial court designated Jordan a Tier II sex offender and imposed fines, fees, and costs.
At sentencing the court heard the prosecutor, defense counsel, victim impact statement, and PSI; the PSI and statements indicated Jordan minimized the conduct and initially denied genital contact.
The court found multiple "more serious" factors (victim age exacerbated harm, serious psychological harm, relationship facilitating the offense) and recidivism factors (prior criminal history, lack of genuine remorse) and concluded community control would be inadequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two counts per victim (breast touching and vaginal touching) are allied offenses of similar import and should have been merged	State: counts concern different acts/harms and can be separately punished	Jordan: the acts were part of one assaultive event at the same time with the same animus, so counts concerning the same girl should merge	Court held counts did not merge; separate acts against same victim (different sexual conduct) have distinct import and may support separate convictions
Whether the trial court erred by imposing prison rather than community control (i.e., whether presumption of prison was rebutted)	State: prison appropriate given victim harm, defendant’s position of trust, lack of genuine remorse, and risk of recidivism	Jordan: argued court overstated seriousness, improperly relied on unsworn statements, should have considered intoxication and his long law‑abiding life; community control adequate	Court held prison was supported by the record; findings on seriousness and recidivism (relationship facilitating offense, psychological harm, minimization/lack of acceptance) supported denying community control; affirmed sentence

State v. Earley, 49 N.E.3d 266 (Ohio 2015) (sets forth allied‑offense three‑question analysis and explains offenses involving separate victims or separate identifiable harms are dissimilar)
State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (framework for allied‑offense analysis: conduct, animus, and import must be considered)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Bevly, 27 N.E.3d 516 (Ohio 2015) (discusses presumption of prison and the court’s authority to impose community control only if presumption is rebutted)
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when exercising sentencing discretion)