State v. Stamper, 2013 Ohio 5669

Leonard Stamper (age 74 at sentencing) was indicted for three counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition based on sexual acts with a pre‑teen (victim was 10 when offenses began) that occurred while he lived with the victim and her mother.
Stamper pled guilty to three counts of first‑degree felony rape; the GSI count was merged; plea agreement capped exposure at 10 years per count (no life sentence).
At sentencing the court imposed ten years on each rape count and ordered two counts to run consecutively, producing an aggregate 20‑year term.
The victim delivered an emotional impact statement describing multi‑year grooming, severe harm, hospitalization, and the parental/household relationship; Stamper apologized and accepted responsibility at the hearing.
Stamper appealed arguing (1) the trial court abused its discretion/erred by imposing maximum sentences and (2) his aggregate 20‑year term for a 74‑year‑old is a de facto life sentence constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
The appellate court affirmed the maximum individual terms but held the trial court failed to make the statutorily required on‑the‑record findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), vacated the consecutive portion, and remanded for resentencing; the Eighth Amendment claim was rendered moot by remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stamper)	Held
Whether maximum 10‑year terms per count were improper	Trial court properly considered statutory factors and victim impact; sentence within statutory range	Court abused discretion/failed to weigh R.C. 2929.12 mitigating factors (acceptance of responsibility); sentence disproportionate to similar cases	Affirmed: maximum terms not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and sentenced within statutory range
Whether consecutive sentences were legally authorized without explicit on‑the‑record findings	Consecutive terms were supported by the seriousness, predatory grooming, and harm to the child	Consecutive terms not justified; trial court did not make required statutory findings at sentencing	Reversed as to consecutivity: trial court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record; consecutive portion vacated and case remanded for resentencing
Whether 20‑year aggregate sentence is cruel and unusual (de facto life sentence)	State did not press on merits given remand	20 years for a 74‑year‑old is de facto life and violates Eighth Amendment	Moot: appellate court declined to decide because remand for resentencing was required

Hungler v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 338 (1986) (appellate court may recognize and decide an issue not raised by the parties when the record provides a sufficient basis)