State v. Lansing, 2010 Ohio 6352

Lansing, with two passengers, drove eastbound on Sinking Spring Road; vehicle left roadway and landed in a wheat field about 55 feet from road; Elizabeth Theophilos died; Lansing and Tara Cruea were seriously injured.
Highland County Grand Jury returned separate indictments charging Lansing with aggravated vehicular assault and aggravated vehicular homicide.
At trial, Trooper Grillot testified that Lansing’s speed was slightly over 90 mph, conflicting with Lansing’s expert who estimated 58-64 mph.
The accident occurred after dark with no road lighting; several witnesses and physical evidence were presented on speed and recklessness.
Jury found Lansing guilty on both counts; trial court sentenced him to 18 months for aggravated vehicular assault and 5 years for aggravated vehicular homicide, to be served consecutively.
Lansing appealed raising four assignments of error including weight of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct/ineffective assistance, and consecutive sentencing challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the consecutive sentencing an abuse of discretion?	Lansing contends consecutive terms are improper.	Court should have imposed concurrent sentences based on statutes and case law.	No abuse of discretion; consecutive sentences affirmed.
Are the verdicts against the manifest weight of the evidence on recklessness?	Conflicting speeds create a weight issue; verdict should be reversed.	Evidence supports recklessness under either speed scenario.	Not against weight; ample evidence supports recklessness.
Did prosecutorial misconduct in closing require reversal or ineffective assistance?	Assistant prosecutor denigrated defense expert; plain error or ineffective assistance possible.	Comment was improper but not plain error; counsel not ineffective.	Not plain error; no reversible prejudice; ineffective aid likewise not shown.
Was the trial court's sentencing rationale adequately explained or an abuse of discretion?	Consecutive sentences were unwarranted given circumstances.	Court provided detailed reasoning; not an abuse of discretion.	Reasoned, non-arbitrary; no abuse of discretion.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-step felony sentencing review; statutory compliance and abuse of discretion)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (no requirement to articulate reasoning for consecutive sentences)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain error standard and necessity for safeguard in Crim.R. 52(B))
State v. McCausland, 124 Ohio St.3d 8 (2009) (plain error standard application in appellate review)
State v. Braden, 98 Ohio St.3d 354 (2003) (plain error and standards for appellate review of prosecutorial conduct)
State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245 (2001) (plain error framework and necessity for clear prejudice)