State v. Philpot, 2013 Ohio 4534

Philpot pled guilty to two counts of burglary and two counts of breaking and entering in Clermont County.
An accomplice confessed and DNA linked Philpot to the burglaries; property stolen included electronics, firearms, jewelry, and tools.
State dismissed remaining charges in exchange for the guilty plea; trial court sentenced to six years total (two years for each burglary count and one year for each breaking-and-entering count) to be served consecutively.
Philpot challenged the sentence on two interrelated assignments of error, challenging legality and consecutiveness.
Appellate standard of review is the deferential RC 2953.08(G)(2) standard; appellate court may modify only if record shows clear and convincing error or lawfulness is at issue.
Circuit concluded the trial court properly considered sentencing factors and made proper findings for consecutive terms; sentence within statutory range and not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the sentence supported by the record findings?	Philpot argues the findings do not support the sentence.	Philpot contends the court abused by not aligning findings with law and record.	Not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; within statutory range.
Are consecutive sentences proper given the record?	Philpot asserts consecutive terms are improper.	Philpot argues there was no statutory basis to stack sentences.	Consecutive sentences properly imposed with explicit statutorily required findings.

State v. Crawford, 2013-Ohio-3315 (Ohio 2013) (clarifies RC 2953.08(G)(2) standard and that appellate review is highly deferential)
State v. Elliott, 2009-Ohio-5926 (Ohio 2009) (supports the notion that appellate review must assess within-range sentencing and statutory factors)
Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 (Ohio 2013) (explains the clear and convincing standard is a negative standard for appellate review)