State v. Moore, 2023 Ohio 3834

This is Moore’s third appeal; earlier decisions (Moore I) affirmed convictions but required merger of multiple weapons-under-disability counts and remanded for resentencing; Moore II remanded again because the trial court failed to make the statutory consecutive-sentence findings at resentencing.
At issue here: Nov. 8, 2022 resentencing after prior remands; defendant convicted of one count of having weapons while under disability (possession of three firearms) and one count of possession of cocaine.
Police seized three firearms plus cocaine, marijuana, prescription pills not prescribed to Moore, a ledger, a digital scale, and nearly $8,000 (some counterfeit) from Moore’s home.
Trial court found consecutive sentences necessary, not disproportionate, and that the offender’s history of criminal conduct required consecutive sentences; it imposed 36 months for the weapons count and 8 years for the drug count, to run consecutively (aggregate 11 years).
Moore appealed only the consecutive-sentence/proportionality rulings, arguing the record does not support the statutory findings and the court failed to analyze aggregate proportionality.
The Sixth District affirmed, concluding the court made the required findings at the hearing and in its entry and that the record (current conduct plus extensive juvenile and adult criminal history, lack of remorse, prior violent/drug convictions) adequately supports necessity and proportionality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Moore)	Held
Whether the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences are supported by the record	State: The court made all required findings; record (guns, drugs, lengthy criminal history, lack of remorse, failure to respond to sanctions) supports necessity	Moore: Only his long record is supported; that alone is insufficient; weapons-under-disability is not an "offense of violence"; refusal to accept responsibility irrelevant	Held: Findings were made and incorporated; record (three guns while under disability, drugs, extensive juvenile/adult violent and drug convictions) provides evidentiary support; affirmed
Whether the trial court failed to analyze proportionality of the aggregate consecutive sentence	State: Aggregate term is not disproportionate given current offenses plus extensive history and danger to public	Moore: Court did not perform a proportionality analysis and gave no reasons	Held: No talismanic recitation required; proportionality is assessed by current conduct together with past conduct; record shows consideration of both and aggregate sentence is not unsupported; affirmed

State v. Moore, 168 N.E.3d 921 (6th Dist. 2021) (affirmed convictions but remanded for merger/resentencing)
State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them into the judgment entry; need not recite reasons)
State v. Beasley, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018) (three statutory findings required to impose consecutive sentences)
State v. Carnes, 116 N.E.3d 138 (Ohio 2018) (R.C. 2923.13 reflects legislative policy that possession of weapons by certain offenders increases public-safety risk)