State v. McClendon, 2012 Ohio 1410

McClendon was charged in two joined Mahoning County cases: 10-CR-730 for cocaine and crack cocaine trafficking, and 10-CR-1049 for heroin possession and cocaine trafficking near a juvenile.
Plea agreement: McClendon pleaded guilty to trafficking in 10-CR-730 and heroin possession in 10-CR-1049; the State dismissed the juvenile-trafficking charge and recommended three-year terms in 10-CR-730 running to be served consecutively to three years in 10-CR-1049 for a six-year aggregate.
Plea hearing: the court explained the deal would result in six years total, either all concurrent or the proposed structure, and McClendon acknowledged
Sentencing: the court imposed three-year terms on the two trafficking convictions to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to three years for the possession charge, totaling six years.
Counsel's role: defense advocated for concurrency; the State urged consecutiveness based on criminal history and offense severity; defense submitted a sentencing memorandum.
Appeal issues: McClendon challenges disproportionality under 2929.11(B) and claims ineffective assistance for not objecting to consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disproportionality under 2929.11(B)	McClendon argues for a disproportional sentence.	McClendon contends sentences are disproportionate to similar offenders.	No abuse; record lacks comparators to prove disproportionality; sentence reasonable.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to consecutiveness	Defense argues failure to object prejudiced McClendon.	Counsel adequately advocated; no prejudice shown given case law on consecutive sentences.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice; no requirement to object under Hodge/Oregon Ice framework.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124 (2008-Ohio-4912) (limits and review of felony-sentence discretion; review for compliance with statutes and factors)
State v. York, 2009-Ohio-6263 (2009-Ohio-6263) (disproportionality analysis; need for record-based comparators)
State v. Miller, 2010-Ohio-2138 (2010-Ohio-2138) (guidance on disproportionality review and data burden)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006-Ohio-856) (waived need for mandatory judicial findings to impose consecutive sentences (pre-Foster framework))
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-6320, 941 N.E.2d 768 (2010-Ohio-6320) (clarified requirements for consecutive-sentencing findings post-Oregon Ice)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 129 S. Ct. 711 (2009) (addressed jury trial and consecutive-sentence findings (federal).)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989) (Strickland-based analysis in Ohio)
Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999) (presumption of competent counsel; burden on defendant)