State v. Rich, 2014 Ohio 4623

Appellant Daniel Rich pled guilty to two counts of aggravated vehicular assault arising from a May 17, 2013 crash in Middletown while uninsured and intoxicated.
Three victims sustained serious injuries; a four-month-old child was unharmed; Rich's vehicle collided with Rose Hughes's vehicle.
Two additional charges were merged as part of a plea agreement; Rich was sentenced to 48 months on count one and 24 months on count two, to be served consecutively.
The trial court conducted a presentence investigation, heard mitigating testimony, and stated findings justifying consecutive sentencing.
Rich appealed raising three assignments of error: (1) improper consecutive-sentence findings, (2) consideration of nonstatutory sentencing factors, (3) allied offenses of similar import not merged.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the consecutive-sentence findings were proper, the nonstatutory factors were permissible, and the counts were not allied offenses requiring merger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consecutive-sentence findings	Rich contends RC 2929.14(C)(4) findings were not properly made.	Rich argues the court failed to satisfy statutory findings before imposing consecutive terms.	Findings satisfied; consecutive sentences affirmed.
Nonstatutory sentencing factors	Rich claims the court relied on nonstatutory factors (e.g., license/insurance status).	Rich contends such factors are improper considerations for sentencing.	Court properly considered relevant factors; sentence not contrary to law.
Allied offenses of similar import	Rich asserts the two counts should have been merged as allied offenses.	Rich argues the offenses were not separate in intent or harm to distinct victims.	Two counts were not allied offenses; proper to sentence separately.

State v. Setty, 2014-Ohio-2340 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-06-049 (2014)) (three-step analysis for consecutive sentences)
State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 (Ohio Supreme Court (2014)) (requires articulation of consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing and entry)
State v. Crawford, 2013-Ohio-3315 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-12-088 (2013)) (standard of review for felony sentencing under 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Olvera, 2013-Ohio-3992 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-10-199 (2013)) (appellate review of within-range felony sentences)
State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-6314 (Ohio Supreme Court (2010)) (allied offenses of similar import—Johnson framework (Johnson test))
State v. Phelps, 2010-Ohio-3257 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-09-243 (2010)) (multiple victims–separate harms permit separate convictions)