State v. McGlown, 2017 Ohio 669

Appellant Kalvin McGlown was charged by bill of information with one count of theft (fifth-degree felony) on January 7, 2016.
He initially pled not guilty, then withdrew that plea and pled guilty on March 17, 2016.
At sentencing on May 13, 2016, the trial court imposed an 11-month prison term and ordered it to run consecutively to a nine-month Lucas County sentence.
The court relied on the presentence investigation, which documented an extensive juvenile and adult criminal history, and heard statements from appellant and his counsel.
Appellant appealed, arguing the trial court’s sentencing findings were unsupported by the record and the sentence was contrary to law.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the court considered the statutory factors and made the required findings for consecutive sentences; the sentence was within the statutory range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is contrary to law	McGlown: trial court made findings not supported by record, so sentence is contrary to law	State: court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, and sentence is within statutory range	Affirmed — sentence not contrary to law; findings supported by record
Whether trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences	McGlown: consecutive order unsupported by facts in record	State: consecutive sentences necessary to protect public and punish given criminal history and seriousness	Affirmed — court made required consecutive-sentence findings and record supports them

State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (describes appellate review framework for felony sentences and reasonableness analysis)