State v. May, 2013 Ohio 2697

May pleaded guilty to one count of attempted felonious assault and received the maximum 36-month prison term.
May and his codefendant brother Deandre May were charged in a drive-by shooting at a deli with multiple counts, some involving gun specifications and gang activity.
Plea bargain: Counts were amended and some charges dismissed in exchange for truthful testimony against the remaining codefendant.
The trial court conducted a thorough plea colloquy and ordered presentence reports prior to sentencing.
At sentencing, the court noted May’s extensive criminal history and probation violations, and chose the maximum term based on those factors.
May argues on appeal that the court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and that the sentence is disproportionate to his codefendant’s.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the maximum sentence complied with 2929.11/2929.12	May argues court failed to consider 2929.11/2929.12.	State contends the court considered required factors and plainly stated reasonableness.	Sentence within permissible range; factors were considered; not contrary to law.
Whether May’s sentence is disproportionate to Deandre May’s sentence	May claims disproportionality due to codefendant receiving community control.	State notes differing participation, age, and rehabilitation prospects; no abuse of discretion.	No reversible error; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; not one-size-fits-all.

State v. Goins, 8th Dist. No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-263 (8th Dist. 2013) (permits deference to statutory-range sentencing and review of underlying findings)
State v. Schmidt, 8th Dist. No. 98731, 2013-Ohio-1552 (8th Dist. 2013) (recognizes HB 86 standards for appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Davis, 8th Dist. Nos. 97689, 97691, 97692, 2012-Ohio-3951 (8th Dist. 2012) (discusses appellate review under 2929.11/2929.12 and consistency of sentencing)
State v. Barkley, 8th Dist. Nos. 98549, 98551, 98552, 2013-Ohio-1545 (8th Dist. 2013) (quotes 2953.08 analysis for sentence review)
State v. Hominsky, 8th Dist. No. 91961, 2009-Ohio-4029 (8th Dist. 2009) (discusses reliance on presentence reports and individualized sentencing)
State v. Turney, 8th Dist. No. 91555, 2009-Ohio-964 (8th Dist. 2009) (records that journal entry supports conclusions by stating factors considered)
State v. Grant, 8th Dist. No. 94101, 2010-Ohio-5241 (8th Dist. 2010) (confirms no rigid uniformity required in co-defendant sentences)
State v. El-Berri, 8th Dist. No. 92388, 2010-Ohio-146 (8th Dist. 2010) (court speaks through journal entries; reasons need not be explicit beyond entry)
State v. Pruitt, 8th Dist. No. 98080, 2012-Ohio-5418 (8th Dist. 2012) (discusses consistency and justification in sentencing)