State v. McKinney, 2022 Ohio 849

In May 2019 McKinney, speeding at about 88 mph, collided with multiple vehicles; three other parties suffered serious, permanent injuries.
McKinney pleaded guilty to four counts of vehicular assault (R.C. 2903.08(A)(2)(b)), all fourth-degree felonies.
At sentencing the trial court imposed four consecutive 15-month terms (total 60 months), calling the crash a “road rage incident” and tying it to McKinney’s prior conduct.
The court relied on McKinney’s extensive criminal history (multiple license suspensions, seven convictions for driving with a suspended license, numerous speeding citations, and other convictions) and found consecutive terms necessary to protect the public and to punish, and that one or more courses of conduct and McKinney’s criminal-history aggravation were present.
McKinney did not object at sentencing (raising plain-error review on appeal) and appealed the consecutive-sentence finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), challenging the court’s (b) and (c) findings.
The First District affirmed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), concluding the record supports the trial court’s finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) (criminal-history basis), so reversal was not required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences are supported under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) (offenses committed as part of one or more courses of conduct with harm so great/unusual)	Trial court found offenses were committed in one or more courses of conduct and so stated at sentencing and in the entry	Record does not support a course-of-conduct finding or the “so great or unusual” harm required by (b)	Court did not resolve (b); unnecessary because (c) supported the sentence
Whether consecutive sentences are supported under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) (defendant’s history of criminal conduct shows need to protect the public)	McKinney’s long driving-related record and other convictions show a need to protect the public and justify consecutive terms	Although McKinney has a criminal record, it lacks prior road-rage incidents and thus does not show the specific danger asserted	Affirmed: record supports the (c) finding; consecutive sentences upheld under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)

State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (standard of appellate review for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)).
State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (defining when a sentence is "contrary to law").
State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court need not recite statutory language verbatim but record must show requisite analysis).
State v. Grate, 172 N.E.3d 8 (Ohio 2020) (explaining R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) aggravating-factor framework).
State v. Hessler, 734 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio 2000) (plain-error and forfeiture principles at sentencing).
State v. Hayes, 162 N.E.3d 947 (Ohio 2020) (plain-error standard applied to sentencing issues).