State v. Siefker, 2011 Ohio 1867

Indicted on four counts: receiving stolen property (fifth degree), breaking and entering (fifth degree), burglary (second degree), and breaking and entering (fifth degree).
Plea: pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 2 under a negotiated agreement; counts 3–4 dismissed; PSI ordered.
Sentence: 12 months on each of two fifth-degree felonies, consecutive for 24 months total, plus $500 restitution.
Appellate posture: notice of appeal; challenges to maximum sentences, consecutive-sentencing findings, and consideration of co-defendant statements.
Court’s framework: Foster permits maximum/consecutive sentences within ranges without explicit findings; remains bound to consider 2929.11, 2929.12, and other applicable statutes; statements from a co-defendant admissible in PSI for sentencing.
Record shows trial court considered relevant factors, including abuse history and related offenses, despite not restating all statutory considerations in the judgment entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court err by imposing maximum, consecutive sentences?	Siefker: not the worst form of offenses; fifth-degree receiving stolen property not warranting max.	State: maximum allowed if offender poses greatest likelihood of future crimes; consecutive sentences warranted.	No error; sentences within statutory range; Foster permits maximum/consecutive without explicit findings.
Did the court err by not giving explicit reasons for consecutive-sentence findings under 2929.14(E)(4)?	Siefker: required explicit findings before consecutive terms.	State: Foster permits no mandatory findings for consecutive sentences; court gave reasons on the record.	Not error; findings were effectively considered; Court complied with applicable law.
Did the court improperly rely on co-defendant statements in sentencing?	Siefker: statements from co-defendant in separate proceeding and not under oath; improper.	State: PSI and statements are permissible for sentencing; hearsay allowed.	No error; PSI materials and co-defendant statements permissible for sentencing under 2929.19(B)(1).

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (severed portions of felony sentencing law; courts may impose within-range sentences without explicit findings)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006-Ohio-855) (requires consideration of sentencing factors; no mandatory fact-finding after Foster)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-part test for appellate review; abuse-of-discretion standard discussed)
State v. Bowser, 186 Ohio App.3d 162 (2010-Ohio-951) (hearsay allowed in sentencing via PSI; statements from others may be considered)
State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20 (1989-Ohio-17) (hearsay admissible for sentencing purposes; evidentiary rules do not apply)