State v. Starcher, 2015 Ohio 5250

Defendant/appellant Starcher was convicted of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor (Count I, second degree) and twenty counts (Counts II–XIX, XXII) (fourth degree).
Evidence tied Starcher to online exchanges and downloaded child pornography images/videos via IMGSRC.RU, including identified victims and additional undeleted material on devices.
Trial court accepted guilty pleas at one point, granted withdrawal of pleas, and then proceeded to trial resulting in a verdict of guilt on most counts; nolle prosequi on two counts.
Sentencing hearing occurred after a pre-sentence investigation; court imposed an aggregate 12-year prison term and classified him as Tier II offender.
Appellant challenged the sentence as excessive and abusive, arguing misapplication of law and failure to merge allied offenses; court held sentence proper.
This appeal focuses on whether the sentence was contrary to law or an abuse of discretion, and whether consecutive terms were properly imposed under applicable statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was unduly harsh or an abuse of discretion	Starcher argues sentencing was excessive and not supported by the record	State contends sentence within statutory ranges and properly reasoned	Sentence affirmed; not contrary to law or an abuse of discretion

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-step standard for reviewing felony sentences)
State v. Bailey, 2014-Ohio-5129 (2014) (use Kalish framework; abuse-of-discretion review second step)
State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 (2014) (consecutive-sentencing findings need not be verbatim, but supported by record)