State v. Lough, 2016 Ohio 3513

Derrin Lee Lough was indicted in two Trumbull County cases: burglary (originally felony 2, reduced to felony 3) and failure to comply with a police signal (felony 3 with allegation his driving created substantial risk).
As part of a plea agreement the state dismissed one count, reduced burglary to a third-degree felony, and Lough pleaded guilty to burglary and failure to comply.
At sentencing the court imposed 36 months for burglary (maximum for a third-degree felony) and 12 months consecutive for failure to comply; the court had denied community control despite defense requests based on a drug treatment placement.
Lough appealed, arguing (1) the sentences were unreasonable/excessive, (2) the court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum burglary term without proper consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors, and (3) consecutive sentences were imposed without the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
The trial court’s judgment entries and oral statements recited that it considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.
The court of appeals affirmed: both terms were within the statutory range and the record showed the trial court considered the required sentencing statutes; consecutive terms were mandatory under R.C. 2921.331(D) because Lough admitted driving that created a substantial risk, so no R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prison terms (36 mo burglary; 12 mo failure to comply) are contrary to law/unreasonable	State: sentences are within statutory range and court considered required statutes	Lough: sentences are excessive, court failed to properly apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, so maximum burglary term is unjustified	Affirmed: sentences within statutory ranges; record shows court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; not contrary to law
Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.12 factors before imposing a maximum sentence for burglary	State: court’s statements and entries show consideration of R.C. 2929.12	Lough: court overlooked mitigating factors (remorse, non-violent history), warranting lesser sentence	Affirmed: trial court explicitly noted it balanced seriousness and recidivism factors; appellant did not show record lacks support
Whether consecutive sentences required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	State: R.C. 2921.331(D) mandates consecutive terms when offense involved creating substantial risk, so R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings unnecessary	Lough: court erred by not making consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Affirmed: R.C. 2921.331(D) applied and makes consecutive terms mandatory; no R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (discusses two-step appellate review of felony sentences prior to statutory change)