State v. Sipperley, 2020 Ohio 4609

Rory D. Sipperley was indicted on multiple drug and weapons counts; he pled guilty to Count 3 (trafficking in heroin, second-degree felony) and Count 9 (having weapons while under disability, third-degree felony) in exchange for dismissal of other counts and withdrawal of a pending suppression motion.
At sentencing the trial court imposed 96 months on the trafficking count and 36 months on the weapons count, to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to a sentence Sipperley was already serving; the court also ordered fines, costs, forfeitures, and three years of post-release control.
The sentencing entry recited findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) (that at least two offenses were part of one or more courses of conduct and the harm was so great or unusual that consecutive terms were warranted).
At the sentencing hearing, however, the court made only general remarks about the seriousness of the offenses, public protection, and punishment, and did not expressly make the specific statutory R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a),(b), or (c) finding on the record.
Sipperley appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making the statutory findings at the hearing and (2) his sentence was excessive/contrary to law; the Sixth District reversed in part (consecutive findings) and affirmed in part (no excess), and remanded for resentencing and a technical correction (express trafficking term in years rather than months).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sipperley)	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were lawfully imposed without the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing	The record (including Sipperley’s purported criminal history and that he was serving a sentence) supports consecutive sentences and the court’s statements show it made the necessary findings	Trial court failed to make the specific R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing (only general remarks were made)	Reversed and remanded: the trial court did not make the required C(4) finding on the record at sentencing; consecutive imposition was contrary to law and resentencing is required
Whether the imposed sentence is excessive or otherwise contrary to law	Sentence is within statutory range and the court considered relevant sentencing factors; therefore it is not contrary to law	Sentence is excessive; court failed to impose the minimum sanctions and did not adequately consider rehabilitation efforts	Affirmed as to excessiveness: sentence within statutory ranges and presumption that R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 were considered was not rebutted; but remand ordered to (1) correct the trafficking term to years (8 years) and (2) make proper consecutive-sentence findings if court again imposes consecutive terms

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make the statutory consecutive-sentence findings on the record and incorporate them into the judgment entry; need not recite statutory language verbatim)
State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (2018) (addresses the application of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence requirements)
State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 (2019) (failure to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings renders sentence contrary to law)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (framework for appellate review of felony sentences and when sentences are clearly and convincingly contrary to law)
State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 (1988) (where the record is silent, there is a presumption the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12)