State v. Roush, 2017 Ohio 1115

Carl E. Roush was indicted on four counts: two counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor (R.C. §2907.322(A)(1)) and two counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor (R.C. §2907.321(A)(1)) for downloading child pornography onto his computers.
Investigators from the Ohio ICAC executed a search warrant, seized Roush’s computers, and found 33 videos obtained via a peer-to-peer program; Roush admitted searching for, downloading, viewing, and masturbating to the material.
Some videos were played in open court; the court described them as graphic, predatory, and re-victimizing the children depicted.
Roush pleaded guilty to all counts but declined the State’s five-year recommended plea and elected a sentencing hearing to present mitigating evidence; family and friends testified to his character.
The trial court imposed an aggregate eight-year prison term (two years on each count, run consecutively) and classified Roush as a Tier III sex offender.
On appeal Roush challenged only the imposition of consecutive sentences, arguing the trial court failed to properly apply R.C. §2929.14(C)(4) factors and relied on improper or boilerplate language about his criminal history.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were lawful under R.C. §2929.14(C)(4)	State argued court made the required findings (protect public, punish, not disproportionate, course of conduct with great/ unusual harm) and properly recorded them.	Roush argued the court relied on the videos’ content (some of which it did not view), did not assess statutory factors correctly, and therefore the consecutive findings were contrary to law.	Affirmed — the appellate court found the record supported the R.C. §2929.14(C)(4) findings; consecutive terms were not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
Whether trial court’s use of boilerplate criminal-history language invalidated consecutive findings	State: any surplus language did not undermine the explicit findings made at sentencing and in the entry.	Roush: inclusion of “and/or the defendant’s history of criminal conduct” suggested the court mistakenly relied on nonexistent prior convictions or used inattention/boilerplate.	Court found the sentencing transcript shows the judge noted Roush had no prior history and made other explicit findings; the stray language was superfluous and did not render the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (clarified pre-Marcum sentencing review approach)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (adopted R.C. §2953.08 standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (explained required judicial findings and that trial courts need not use talismanic statutory language if findings are otherwise clear)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defined clear and convincing evidence standard)