State v. Magee, 2019 Ohio 1921

Christopher Magee pleaded guilty in April 2017 to resisting arrest (misdemeanor) and to two amended fourth-degree felony counts (attempted failure to comply; attempted tampering with evidence). The trial court placed him on a 5-year term of community control with conditions including no drug use.
At sentencing in June 2017 the court warned Magee it could impose prison terms of 18 months on each felony if he violated community control; the court did not make or recite findings under R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, or 2929.14.
Probation charged Magee with community-control violations in July 2018 (positive cocaine test and admissions of marijuana use). Magee admitted the violations at a hearing.
The trial court revoked community control and imposed two consecutive 18-month prison terms (36 months aggregate) in July 2018; again, the court did not make statutory findings under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12/2929.14 on the record or in the entry.
Magee appealed, arguing (1) the sentence was excessive and the court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11; and (2) the sentence was vindictive because the judge referenced Magee fathering children out of wedlock at the earlier sentencing.
The Sixth District reversed and vacated the 36-month sentence and remanded for further proceedings, concluding there was plain error in imposing consecutive sentences without the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.

Issue	Magee's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 (excessive sentence)	Magee: court ignored the statutory purposes and minimum sanctions requirement	State: sentence was not appealable earlier; no forfeiture; trial court need not state R.C. 2929.11 expressly	Court: Magee failed to rebut presumption the court considered R.C. 2929.11; no reversible error on this ground
Whether sentence was vindictive due to judge's comment about children out of wedlock	Magee: comment shows animus and vindictiveness, violating due process	State: comments were not evidence of vindictiveness; sentencing based on violations	Court: no evidence of actual vindictiveness; remark was not basis for prison sentence
Whether consecutive sentences were legally permissible without statutory findings	Magee: (did not assign error) implicit challenge to legality of sentence	State: argued appealability/other procedural defenses	Court: trial court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record or in entry; plain error requiring vacatur and remand

State v. Baker, 152 Ohio App.3d 138 (Ohio App. 2003) (distinguishing immediately appealable suspended prison terms from community-control warnings)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (guidance on appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for vacating sentence when record does not support it)
State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 2017) (presumption that trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 absent affirmative rebuttal)
State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2017) (review for vindictiveness and presumption of proper criteria consideration)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (requirements to state R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and in entry)
State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 (Ohio 2001) (high standard for finding plain error)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (Crim.R. 52(B) and limits on plain error review)
State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597 (Ohio 1992) (appellate court may sua sponte consider plain error)