State v. Ropp, 2018 Ohio 3815

Multi-county investigation into methamphetamine trafficking led to a search of Michael D. Ropp’s Champaign County residence where police found large quantities of methamphetamine, money, drug paraphernalia, and firearms.
Ropp was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated trafficking and possession, weapons offenses, tampering with evidence, unlawful possession of a dangerous ordinance, and possessing a defaced firearm; several forfeiture and firearm specifications accompanied counts.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Ropp pled guilty to amended Count II (aggravated possession, third-degree), Count V (tampering with evidence, third-degree), and Count VI (unlawful possession of a dangerous ordinance, fifth-degree); remaining counts and some specifications were dismissed.
The trial court imposed maximum 36-month sentences on Counts II and V and eight months on Count VI, ordering Counts II and V to run consecutively and Count VI concurrent, for an aggregate 72-month prison term. The court placed its findings on the record and in the judgment entry.
Ropp appealed, arguing the trial court erred in imposing maximum consecutive sentences; the appellate court reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) (clear-and-convincing standard).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing maximum sentences for Counts II and V	State: Court properly exercised discretion within statutory range and considered statutory sentencing factors	Ropp: Maximum sentences were excessive/unwarranted	Held: Affirmed — individual maximum sentences are within statutory range and record supports consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors
Whether consecutive sentences were improper	State: Court made required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to justify consecutive terms	Ropp: Consecutive maximum terms were unwarranted despite findings	Held: Affirmed — court articulated statutory findings (necessity, proportionality, and applicable subsections) on the record and in entry
Whether the record supports findings about seriousness and recidivism	State: Evidence (bulk meth, distribution network, selling while on bond, destruction of evidence, high ORAS) supports findings	Ropp: Challenges some factual bases (e.g., argued prior charge on bond was dismissed)	Held: Affirmed — record supports findings; dismissal asserted by Ropp not in record
Whether the court’s use of ORAS or other tools rendered sentencing improper	State: ORAS is a tool among others and was appropriately considered	Ropp: Reliance on algorithmic risk assessment may be problematic	Held: Not reversible — appellate concurrence cautioned ORAS is one tool and should be contextualized, but its use did not render sentence contrary to law

State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio 2013) (trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range)
State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (trial courts must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in sentencing)
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (statutory sentencing principles and consideration requirements)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for reviewing felony sentences)
State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and journalize findings to impose consecutive sentences)