State v. Pearce, 2022 Ohio 2617

Appellant Brandon Pearce was indicted on 48 child‑pornography–related counts and pled guilty to 24 counts (23 counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor — fourth‑degree felonies — and one count of illegal use of a minor in nudity‑oriented material — a fifth‑degree felony).
The trial court imposed eight months’ incarceration on each count, ordered consecutively, resulting in an aggregate 16‑year prison term, and awarded 470 days of jail‑time credit.
At sentencing the court noted Pearce’s limited adult criminal history but that he had prior juvenile sex‑offense allegations in Florida and had completed adolescent treatment.
The court characterized Pearce’s conduct as graphic and involving infants and prepubescent children and concluded Pearce was not amenable to community control.
Pearce appealed solely arguing the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences as contrary to law and disproportionate to his conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: The court made the requisite findings (need to protect public/punish, not disproportionate, multiple offenses as part of a course of conduct with great/unusual harm) and incorporated them into the sentencing entry	Pearce: Record lacks adequate findings; consecutive terms disproportionate; no showing future danger; community control preferable	Affirmed. The record shows the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, made and later incorporated the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, and the sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (explains appellate standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (discusses required findings and incorporation into the judgment when imposing consecutive sentences)