State v. Sergent (Slip Opinion), 148 Ohio St. 3d 94

Defendant William Sergent pleaded guilty to three counts of rape of his minor daughter; plea agreement anticipated 3 consecutive 8-year terms (aggregate 24 years).
At sentencing, prosecution and defense jointly recommended the consecutive 24-year term; judge imposed that sentence and included R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in the written entry but did not articulate all findings at the hearing.
Sergent filed a delayed appeal; the Eleventh District vacated the sentence under State v. Bonnell for failure to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the hearing and certified a conflict with other districts.
The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, presenting the certified question whether a jointly recommended consecutive sentence requires the trial court to make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for the sentence to be "authorized by law."
The Ohio Supreme Court held Porterfield controls: a jointly recommended sentence that includes discretionary consecutive terms is "authorized by law" even if the trial court does not make the statutory consecutive-sentence findings at the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sergent)	Held
Whether a jointly recommended sentence that includes nonmandatory consecutive terms must have R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings made at sentencing for the sentence to be "authorized by law" and unreviewable on appeal	Porterfield controls: joint recommendation makes independent judicial findings unnecessary; such sentences are "authorized by law" and not appealable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)	Bonnell applies: trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the hearing; failure to do so renders the sentence appealable	Court held Porterfield controls; joint recommendation removes the requirement that the judge make the consecutive-sentence findings at the hearing; sentence is "authorized by law" and not reviewable

State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (holding a jointly recommended sentence with consecutive terms is protected from review as "authorized by law")
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (holding a sentence is "authorized by law" only if it comports with mandatory sentencing provisions and distinguishing Porterfield)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (holding courts must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the entry when imposing consecutive sentences absent a joint recommendation)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (severed portions of R.C. 2929.14 but later legislative revival permitted judicial fact-finding)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (holding Sixth Amendment does not prohibit judicial fact-finding before imposing consecutive sentences)