State v. Rust, 2013 Ohio 2151

Rust was indicted on multiple felony counts including aggravated burglary, kidnapping, burglary, failure to comply, felonious assault, and OWI; an amended bill of information added three third-degree felonies.
Plea agreement led to reducing counts and dismissal of several charges; Rust pled guilty to amended Counts One and Two and Count Five, and to Counts Eight–Ten by information.
The State dismissed remaining charges, the repeat violent offender specification, and the forfeiture specification.
Sentencing on July 16, 2012 imposed maximum 36-month terms on six third-degree felonies, to be served consecutively for a total of 18 years.
Rust’s criminal history includes multiple rapes, a grand theft, and an escape offense, informing the consecutive-sentence decision.
The court considered victim impact statements and pre-sentence report; findings required by law were stated in the journal entry and at the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive maximum sentences were adequately justified	Rust	Rust argues the record lacks adequate justification for consecutive, maximum terms	Not persuaded; record supports reasons under statutes
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance	Rust	Rust asserts counsel failed to present a psychologist’s findings and similar-sentencing data	Not persuaded; performance reasonable and not prejudicial

State v. Snyder, 2012-Ohio-3069 (2012) (basis for 3d Dist. on consecutive terms; statutory range applies to third-degree felonies)
State v. Ramos, 2007-Ohio-767 (2007) (clear/convincing standard remains for appellate review)
State v. Rhodes, 2006-Ohio-2401 (2006) (review framework for sentencing decisions)
State v. Tyson, 2005-Ohio-1082 (2005) (R.C. 2929.08/09/14 standards cited by appellate court)
State v. Bentley, 2013-Ohio-852 (2013) (consecutive-sentence findings not required to justify reasons post HB 86)
State v. Alexander, 2012-Ohio-3349 (2012) (HB 86 considerations for consecutive terms)
State v. Nowlin, 2012-Ohio-4923 (2012) (HB 86 findings not explicitly stated in every instance)
State v. Parsons, 2013-Ohio-1281 (2013) (courts’ reading of HB 86 with respect to reasons given for consecutive terms)
State v. Just, 2012-Ohio-4094 (2012) (HB 86 and sentencing findings guidance)
State v. Frasca, 2012-Ohio-3746 (2012) (sentencing procedures considerations under HB 86)
State v. Smith, 2012-Ohio-4523 (2012) (consideration of factors under R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12)
State v. Stiles, 2009-Ohio-89 (2009) (trial-strategy defense regarding expert-witness choice)
State v. Lang, 2011-Ohio-4215 (2011) (witness- and mitigation-strategy considerations are tactical)