State v. Sherman, 2012 Ohio 3958

In 2002, Fred Loewinger led a large mortgage-fraud scheme in the Cleveland area, with Sherman at Titles, Etc. and later Sherman Title Agency assisting in fraudulent closings.
Sherman participated as escrow officer and approved fraudulent transactions, receiving standard title fees rather than illicit proceeds.
The scheme included loan application fraud, down payment fraud, “double HUD” fraud, kickbacks, and money laundering.
Sherman was indicted in 2011 with RICO, theft by deception, telecommunications fraud, tampering with records, and money laundering counts; the jury convicted her on multiple counts, including RICO and various felonies.
At sentencing (2012), the court imposed community control and jail time, fines, costs, and community service, but did not impose a prison term despite the presumption for first/second-degree felonies; the state appeals.
The appellate court reverses the sentence and remands for resentencing due to lack of explicit proportionality findings and a sentencing disparity with a similarly situated co-defendant, Foster.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by not imposing prison despite presumption	State argues presumption in favor of prison for first/second-degree felonies.	Sherman contends her role was not orchestrating, and HB 86 changes require proper findings; argues proportionality and lack of shared illicit proceeds.	Remand for resentencing; sentence vacated for lack of proportionality findings.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (two-step review for felony sentencing post-SB2; deference to court under 2953.08)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (SB2 remittal of judicial fact-finding; governs sentencing framework)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (HB 86 guidance; standard of review under 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Scovil, 127 Ohio App.3d 505 (8th Dist. 1998) (upholding community-based sentence in similar second-degree felony case)
State v. Lyons, 2002-Ohio-3424 (8th Dist. 2002) (consideration of proportionality in sentencing; not a rigid grid)
State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (SB2 impact on jury fact-finding in sentencing)
State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-2669 (Ohio Supreme Court 2011) (proportionality considerations in sentencing)
State v. Stein, 2012-Ohio-2502 (8th Dist. 2012) (sentencing disparity evidence; need for meaningful comparison)
State v. Hites, 2012-Ohio-1892 (3d Dist. 2012) (disparities in sentencing despite similar offenses may require explanation)
State v. Medina, 2004-Ohio-2863 (8th Dist. 2004) (discussion of proportionality and factors under 2929.12)