State v. McWilson, 2022 Ohio 170

McWilson was indicted on multiple counts arising from a drive-by shooting but pled guilty to one count: Felonious Assault (second-degree felony); remaining counts were nolled.
At sentencing the trial court imposed a 4–6 year prison term for Felonious Assault, ordered consecutive to two prior five-year sentences imposed in earlier Portage County cases.
At the sentencing hearing the court orally found consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and not disproportionate, and stated the offense was committed while McWilson was on community control and that his criminal history warranted consecutive terms.
The written judgment entry, however, misstated the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) bases: it included a course-of-conduct finding (C)(4)(b) and omitted the community-control finding (C)(4)(a).
McWilson appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to strictly comply with R.C. 2929.14(C) when imposing consecutive sentences and (2) the court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/.12 sentencing factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court comply with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in imposing consecutive sentences?	State: Court made required (C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing; remedy is limited remand for a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the written entry.	McWilson: Written entry contains inconsistent/unsupported findings (included (b), omitted (a)); requests resentencing or vacatur.	Affirmed sentence; court found (C)(4)(c) and (a) were made at hearing and supported by record, (b) was inapplicable; remanded for nunc pro tunc entry removing (b) and adding (a).
Did the trial court fail to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 sentencing factors?	State: Courts are not required to recite these factors; consideration may be presumed absent affirmative showing otherwise.	McWilson: Record lacks any indication the court considered seriousness and recidivism factors.	Held for State: No affirmative showing that factors were not considered; trial court’s comments and entry reflect consideration; assignment without merit.

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (clarifies trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them into the entry; no requirement to state supporting reasons)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11/.12 but need not make specific factual findings)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (reiterates no judicial fact-finding mandate under R.C. 2929.11/.12)
State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 (presumption that sentencing court considered applicable statutory factors absent affirmative showing otherwise)
State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (limits appellate reweighing under R.C. 2953.08; court may not vacate sentence for lack of record support for considered factors)