State v. Magallanes, 2014 Ohio 4878

Magallanes was indicted in Dec. 2013 for trafficking in cocaine (fifth-degree felonies) in two counts.
He pleaded not guilty, later withdrew that plea, and pled guilty to Count One under a written plea agreement; Count Two was dismissed.
The trial court accepted the plea, ordered a PSI, and sentenced him in March 2014 to 12 months, consecutive to a Wood County sentence.
The Wood County case involved receiving stolen property (fifth-degree) and a separate Henry County matter; Magallanes had multiple prior charges and violations.
Magallanes appealed in Apr. 2014, challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences and related findings; the court reversed and remanded for resentencing on the consecutive-sentences issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court made the required findings for consecutive sentences under 2929.14(C)(4).	Magallanes.	Magallanes argued court did not make the statutory findings.	Findings were not discernible; remand for proper findings.
Whether the trial court made the required findings under 2929.11-2929.14 for a maximum sentence.	Magallanes argued failure to justify a maximum term.	State contends proper consideration occurred.	Record showed consideration of relevant statutes; assignment I overruled.
Whether Magallanes was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing.	Magallanes contends counsel failed to advocate concurrent terms.	State contends no ineffective-assistance issue is preserved on remand.	Moot due to remand for resentencing.

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3177) (requires not necessarily verbatim statutory language but clear analysis and supported findings for consecutive sentences)
State v. Sharp, 2014-Ohio-4140 (3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-01) (consecutive-sentence analysis and incorporation into sentencing entry)
State v. Ramos, 2007-Ohio-767 (3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-06-24) (clear-and-convincing standard for appellate review of sentencing)
State v. Hites, 2012-Ohio-1892 (3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-11-07) (consecutive-sentencing findings under 2929.14(C)(4) required)
State v. Peddicord, 2013-Ohio-3398 (3d Dist. Henry No. 7-12-24) (documentation of required findings on the record)
State v. Parsons, 2011-Ohio-168 (3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-10-27) (consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in sentencing)
State v. Ramey, 2012-Ohio-133 (3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-11-11) (probation/CC violations informing sentence appropriateness)
State v. Smith, 2007-Ohio-3129 (3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-06-37) (consideration of sentencing factors under 2929.11-12)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006-Ohio-855) (guidance on sentencing framework and proportionality)
State v. Snyder, 2013-Ohio-2046 (3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-12-38) (analysis of recidivism and sentencing considerations)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (defining appellate review of sentencing and statutory compliance)
State v. Fletcher, 2013-Ohio-3076 (3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-13-02) (need for proper sentencing considerations and record support)