State v. Moore, 2014 Ohio 5191

Markus D. Moore pleaded guilty to one count of fifth-degree felony theft arising from taking a victim's keys, accessing the victim's car, and using the victim's credit card; a receiving-stolen-property count was dismissed.
The trial court sentenced Moore to 12 months in prison and ordered that this term be served consecutively to multiple existing sentences Moore was already serving from other county courts.
Moore appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive/contrary to law, the trial court failed to make the statutory findings for consecutive sentences, and the court omitted certain notifications at sentencing (drug-use/testing notice under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) and DNA notice under R.C. 2901.07(B)).
The trial court’s record and judgment entry stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 and discussed Moore’s lengthy criminal history, addiction issues, remorse, and high recidivism risk.
At sentencing the court expressly found consecutive service was necessary to protect the public and to punish Moore, that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate, and that Moore’s criminal history made consecutive sentences necessary; those findings were incorporated into the written entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court considered purposes and principles of sentencing	State: Court complied with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	Moore: Court failed to consider all required factors and imposed a maximum sentence contrary to purposes	Held: Court considered the statutes and factors; sentence within statutory range and not contrary to law
Whether trial court made required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences	State: Court made the necessary findings at hearing and in entry	Moore: Court failed to make statutory findings before ordering consecutive service	Held: Court explicitly made required findings at hearing and in entry; consecutive order valid
Whether consecutive sentence prevents participation in prison substance-abuse treatment	State: Consecutive term does not bar treatment	Moore: Consecutive sentence forecloses comprehensive treatment program	Held: No merit — consecutive sentences do not preclude treatment
Whether omission of statutory notifications (drug-use/testing and DNA) prejudiced Moore	State: Omissions do not confer defendant-benefiting rights; any error harmless	Moore: Court erred by not advising him of drug-testing prohibition and DNA submission requirements	Held: Omission of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) notice harmless; failure to ask about DNA was harmless because prison officials must collect specimen if not provided

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (clarifies that a trial court need not recite statutory language verbatim but record must show engagement in the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis and findings)
State v. Steele, 155 Ohio App.3d 659 (2003) (explains DNA-collection requirements facilitate a public database and the sentencing-stage inquiry is ministerial; omissions can be harmless)