State v. Parker, 193 Ohio App. 3d 506

Parker, a teacher at Northeastern High School, was convicted of four counts of sexual battery for sexual acts with a 16-year-old student.
The acts occurred January 1 and January 9, 2010, after months of grooming, with Parker using manipulation and promises of commitment.
Parker pled guilty to all four counts and received a total 15-year prison sentence and Tier III sex-offender classification.
The trial court imposed maximum sentences on two counts and consecutive terms, totaling 15 years, and addressed postrelease-control requirements.
Parker appealed challenging the sentence on multiple grounds, including the propriety of consecutive terms, the court’s compliance with sentencing statutes, and whether the sentences were disproportionate or improperly packaged under Saxon.
The appellate court ultimately modified the judgment to run the sentences concurrently, reducing the aggregate term to five years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consecutive sentences proper under Foster Ice rule	Parker contends Foster revived by Ice requires findings for consecutive terms	State asserts Oregon v. Ice does not revive E4 findings and Foster remains controlling	Consecutive sentences not reversed; error rejected
Sentence compliance with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	Parker argues the court failed to consider sentencing principles and seriousness factors	State maintains the journal entry reflected consideration and record supports factors	Second assignment sustained; sentence contrary to law
Abuse of discretion in more-than-minimum, maximum, and consecutive sentences	15-year aggregate is unjustified given offender’s profile	Court has discretion within range and considered factors, with substantial justification	Third assignment sustained; sixth assignment sustained; error in sentencing approach acknowledged
All four counts are allied offenses; merger required	All counts are allied offenses of similar import; should merge	Counts involve distinct acts; do not merge under Johnson/Garrison line of authority	Seventh assignment overruled; merger not required; counts remain separate

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (consecutive-sentencing framework; severed findings rule under Missouri v. Foster; general considerations apply)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (eligibility and structure of felony sentences; Kalish precursors to review standard)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (sentencing must consider statutory factors; standard for reviewing felony sentences)
State v. Johnson, Ohio St.3d , 2010-Ohio-6314 (2010) (allied-offense analysis; conduct-based merger inquiry guidance)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (sentencing-package doctrine rejected in Ohio; each offense sentenced individually)
State v. Bradley, 2008-Ohio-720 (2008) (discussed Saxon implications on appellate review of multiple offenses)
State v. Comer, 2003-Ohio-4165 (2003) (consecutive-sentencing jurisprudence guidance; abuse of discretion standards)
State v. York, 2009-Ohio-6263 (2009) (consistency in sentencing; data limitations on comparing similar offenders)
State v. Garrison, 2004-Ohio-3567 (2004) (allied offenses doctrine; separate offenses based on distinct conduct)