State v. Schumacher, 2022 Ohio 2939

Feb 21, 2021: Schumacher charged with receiving stolen property (4th‑degree felony); Aug 4, 2021: supplemental indictment for bribery (3rd‑degree felony) for attempting to pay a witness not to testify; he pleaded guilty to both on Aug 31, 2021.
At sentencing (Sept 20, 2021) the trial court reviewed the PSI and R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, noting drug/alcohol abuse, failure to complete treatment, an ORAS score of 31 (high risk), and lack of remorse.
The court imposed 12 months for receiving stolen property and 30 months for bribery, ordered consecutively for an aggregate 42‑month sentence; the court emphasized the bribery occurred after the theft and aimed to undermine the prosecution.
The court expressly found consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and to punish, not disproportionate to the offenses, and that the offenses were part of a course of conduct causing great/unusual harm; it also relied on Schumacher’s criminal history.
Schumacher appealed solely challenging the consecutive sentence, arguing the record did not support the statutory findings and that concurrent time (total 30 months) would suffice; the State argued the record supports the court’s findings.
The Fourth District affirmed, holding the record supported the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and the appellate court was not clearly and convincingly persuaded otherwise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Record supports consecutive findings: theft disrupted business, bribery attempted to undermine justice, extensive criminal history, lack of remorse, PSI risk factors	Record does not support consecutive findings; concurrent sentences would protect public; 42 months disproportionate relative to original charge and his mostly misdemeanor history	Affirmed: court’s consecutive‑sentence findings supported by the record (need to protect public, proportionality, course of conduct, and criminal history); appellate court not clearly and convincingly persuaded to reverse

State ex rel. Hunley v. Wainwright, 163 Ohio St.3d 301 (2021) (discusses presumption favoring concurrent sentences under Ohio law)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must state R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in entry; reasons not required)
State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 (2019) (explains appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for consecutive sentences)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard)