State v. Lababidi, 2014 Ohio 2267

Indicted on 52 counts including illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor, and possession of criminal tools; pleaded guilty to Counts 1–12 and 52; remaining counts nolled.
As part of the plea, defendant Maher Lababidi agreed the offenses were not allied offenses of similar import and acknowledged Tier II sex‑offender registration requirements.
At sentencing the trial court imposed two years each on Counts 1, 2–3, and 4–12 (with Counts 2 and 3 concurrent to each other and Counts 4–12 concurrent to each other), one year on Count 52, and ordered those grouped terms to run consecutively, for an aggregate seven‑year prison term.
Lababidi appealed, raising (1) that the journal entry did not reflect the court’s oral pronouncement and (2) that the consecutive seven‑year sentence was disproportionate compared to sentences in other child‑pornography cases.
The court reviewed the journal entry and sentencing transcript, and analyzed statutory standards for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, and 2929.14(C)(4), and relevant proportionality precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the journal entry failed to reflect the oral sentence	Entry reflects the prosecutor’s position that the court’s sentence was as pronounced	Lababidi: entry shows only a four‑year aggregate and thus conflicts with the seven‑year oral sentence	Court: Entry accurately groups counts and orders them consecutively; the combined terms equal seven years — no discrepancy
Whether consecutive seven‑year sentence is disproportionate	State: court made required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and applied 2929.11/2929.12 to protect public and punish defendant	Lababidi: sentence is disproportionate compared to sentences for similarly situated defendants in other cases	Court: upheld consecutive sentence — trial court made proportionality finding focused on defendant’s conduct and sentence is not contrary to law

State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (8th Dist.) (appellate standard to reverse consecutive sentences requires clear and convincing showing that trial court failed to make required findings or sentence is contrary to law)
State v. Weitbrecht, 715 N.E.2d 167 (Ohio 1999) (Eighth Amendment gross‑disproportionality standard applies to extreme sentences)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment forbids only sentences grossly disproportionate to the crime)
State v. Hairston, 888 N.E.2d 1073 (Ohio 2008) (sentencing scheme focuses on one offense at a time; judge imposes separate term for each offense before deciding concurrency)
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (clarifies sequential sentencing framework referenced in Hairston)
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) (trial court has discretion to sentence within statutory range)