State v. Lee, 2013 Ohio 3404

Lee was indicted in 2011 on multiple counts of illegal processing of drug documents and aggravated possession of drugs in Butler County.
He pled guilty to one illegal processing count and two aggravated possession counts; sentenced in 2011 to 18 months and seven-year terms respectively, all to run concurrently.
On appeal, this court reversed for resentencing due to a violation of allocution rights and remanded.
At resentencing, Lee received 18 months for illegal processing and seven-year mandatory terms for each aggravated possession count, still to run concurrently.
Lee challenges the seven-year mandatory terms as contrary to law, arguing failure to apply statutory factors and disparity with codefendants; the State defends the sentence as proper under the statutes.
The court analyzes the appropriate standard of review for felony sentences post-Kalish and concludes the sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether seven-year mandatory terms for aggravated possession are lawful	Lee argues the seven-year terms exceed statutory range and ignore factors.	State contends terms are within range and properly justified by factors.	Not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; within statutory range.
Whether the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors	Lee claims failure to verbalize and consider seriousness/recidivism factors.	Court's sentencing entry shows consideration of 2929.11/2929.12.	Not contrary to law; factors were considered in the sentencing entry.
Whether consistent sentencing with codefendants was properly achieved	Lee argues lack of uniformity with co-defendant’s sentence.	Trial court properly applied guidelines; variance allowed by factors.	Not contrary to law; consistency achieved through proper application of guidelines.
Whether post-Kalish standard governs review of felony sentences	Lee relies on Kalish framework for review.	Court applies R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard as the post-Foster framework.	R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs; the sentence passes review under that standard.
Whether the seven-year terms affect eligibility for judicial release	Long mandatory terms impermissibly limit release options.	Mandatory terms are required by statute and unaffected by release rules.	Seven-year terms mandatory and within statutory range; not error to impose.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (Kalish framework abandoned; use 2953.08(G)(2) for felonies)
State v. A.H., 2013-Ohio-2525 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (clarifies standard under 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Micomonaco, 2012-Ohio-5239 (12th Dist. Butler) (sentence within range and properly applied 2929.11/2929.12)
State v. Isreal, 2011-Ohio-1474 (12th Dist. Butler) (consistency in sentencing and application of guidelines)
State v. Hall, 2011-Ohio-5748 (12th Dist. Warren) (consistency and consideration of factors in sentencing entries)