State v. Porcher, 2011 Ohio 5976

Porcher was charged by indictment with Complicity to Commit Felonious Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Complicity to Commit Aggravated Robbery, with a co-defendant Elijah charged on related offenses.
Porcher moved to sever his trial from Elijah; the motion was overruled.
Porcher pled no contest to Complicity to Commit Aggravated Robbery; other charges were dismissed; he was sentenced to seven years.
The trial court denied the severance without Bruton concerns since no co-defendant statements were offered.
At sentencing, the court disapproved transitional control, shock incarceration, and the intensive program prison, but did not make required statutory findings for some options.
On appeal, the court remanded to delete the transitional-control disapproval; other aspects of the judgment were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied severance	Porcher argued severance was required to prevent prejudice.	Porcher contended joinder would prejudice his defense or imply testimonies against him.	Denial of severance affirmed; no Bruton issue and no demonstrated prejudice.
Whether the court erred in disapproving transitional control and shock incarceration/intensive program	State argues trial court properly exercised sentencing discretion.	Porcher contends improper disapproval without required findings.	Error in disapproving transitional control; harmless error for shock incarceration and intensive program; remanded to delete transitional-control disapproval.

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1968) (co-defendant statements implicating a defendant violate confrontation when not subject to cross-examination)
State v. Howard, 190 Ohio App.3d 734 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (disapproval of shock incarceration and intensive program prison requires findings; transitional control timing)