State v. Kleman, 2019 Ohio 4404

Dakota R. Kleman was indicted on multiple offenses including burglary, safecracking, tampering with evidence, possessing criminal tools, multiple counts of grand theft (with firearm specifications), having weapons while under disability, and money laundering.
The State disclosed a witness, Breyannea Wells, on September 26, 2018 and recorded an interview of Wells on December 11, 2018; the recording was provided to defense counsel on December 13, 2018.
Kleman moved for a continuance on December 14, 2018 to allow more time to prepare; the trial court denied the motion on December 17, 2018 and trial proceeded December 18, 2018.
The jury acquitted Kleman on three grand-theft counts but convicted him on the remaining fourteen counts.
At sentencing the court imposed a total prison term of 216 months (204 non-mandatory, 12 mandatory), ordering most terms to run consecutively.
Kleman appealed, arguing (1) the trial court unreasonably denied his motion for a continuance and (2) the record does not support imposition of consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion	State: denial proper because defense had months to prepare; motion did not state length and was not shown to be necessary	Kleman: needed more time after receiving recorded interview days before trial to prepare defense	Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record	State: PSI, defendant's misconduct in jail, criminal history, victims' serious harm, course of conduct and post-release control support R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	Kleman: record lacks factual findings required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14 and related statutes	Court: Findings supported by clear-and-convincing evidence; consecutive sentences upheld

State ex rel. Buck v. McCabe, 140 Ohio St. 535 (1942) (trial courts have inherent authority to grant continuances)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (factors to consider in ruling on continuance motions; abuse-of-discretion standard)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (no mechanical test for continuance—contextual due-process inquiry)
State v. Powell, 49 Ohio St.3d 255 (1990) (balancing prejudice against court’s interest in docket control)
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997) (noting limits of Powell on other grounds)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)