State v. Perry, 111 N.E.3d 746

Ronald L. Perry pleaded guilty to seven counts of kidnapping (first-degree felonies) with sexual-motivation specifications and eight counts of gross sexual imposition (third-degree felonies) for abuse of a minor over several years.
As part of plea negotiations Perry agreed with the State to a 40-year sentence “cap” (a maximum), but the parties did not specify a definite minimum or an agreed exact sentence.
At the plea hearing the court warned Perry that it was not bound by the parties’ 40-year cap and that the judge could impose a different sentence; Perry stated he understood and entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily.
At sentencing the trial court imposed a total prison term of 24 years: three years on each kidnapping count (served consecutively) and 36 months on each GSI count, with one GSI count consecutive to the kidnappings.
Perry appealed, arguing (1) the trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and (2) consecutive sentences were unsupported by the record.
The appellate court found the sentence reviewable (because the parties agreed only to a cap, not an agreed sentence/range) and affirmed, holding the trial court met statutory consideration duties and properly imposed consecutive terms under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Issue	Perry's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is unreviewable as a jointly recommended sentence under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)	The 40-year cap was not an agreed sentence so Perry sought review	The parties’ joint recommendation of a 40-year cap rendered the sentence unreviewable	Court: The parties agreed only to a cap (no definite agreed range or exact sentence); sentence is reviewable
Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 purposes and factors	Trial court did not address each individual R.C. 2929.12 factor on the record	Court stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors and identified relevant considerations	Court: Sufficient that the court acknowledged consideration of the statutes; no abuse of discretion
Whether consecutive sentences were unsupported by the record	Record lacks support for consecutive terms; the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are not met	Trial court made the required statutory findings on the record and in the journal entry	Court: Findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were made and supported by the record; consecutive sentences affirmed
Whether the trial court was required to state reasons for consecutive sentences	(implicit) Perry argued insufficiency of record and reasons	State argued compliance with Bonnell: findings required but reasons not necessary	Court: Under Bonnell, reasons are not required beyond the statutory findings; consecutive sentences lawful

State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (statutory framework on when jointly recommended sentences are excluded from appellate review)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial courts must state R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record for consecutive sentences; reasons not required)
State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5, 829 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 2005) (discusses rationale for precluding appellate review of jointly recommended sentences)