State v. Steidl, 2011 Ohio 2320

Earl Steidl pled guilty to rape of a child, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and tampering with evidence; court imposed maximum terms and ordered rape and GSI counts consecutive to each other and concurrent with tampering.
Indictment originally included rape of a child under ten; plea negotiations modified count to rape of a child under thirteen, removing life-sentence exposure.
Trial court commented on family trust and letters from Steidl’s brother and sister during sentencing; issued the same sentence after a prior appellate remand for post-release-control error.
Steidl appealed asserting the court relied on documents outside the record and that the guiding statutory/conceptional framework for consecutive sentencing was misapplied.
Court held letters were not structural error and that presumption of considering 2929.11–2929.12 factors applied; sentences within statutory ranges and not contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether letters from siblings used at sentencing constitute structural error	Steidl argues letters outside the record contaminate sentencing.	State contends letters are not structural errors and are permissible as part of the record reviewed in sentencing.	Not structural error; no reversible error shown.
Whether the consecutive sentencing of counts 1–3 was proper under governing law	Steidl asserts error in imposing consecutive sentences post-Foster/Bates framework.	State argues trial court had discretion to impose consecutive terms after Foster/Bates and 5145.01 does not bar it.	Consecutive sentences within law; proper discretion exercised.
Whether the maximum prison terms for counts 1–4 were proper	Steidl claims the court abused its discretion by imposing maximum terms for all counts.	State maintains the court properly weighed 2929.12 factors and imposed within statutory ranges.	No abuse of discretion; maximum terms upheld.
Whether sentencing tampering with evidence was proper	Steidl challenges the tampering-with-evidence sentence as excessive.	State asserts the destruction of a memory card warranted maximum term given the conduct.	Maximum term for tampering with evidence affirmed.

State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127 (2003) (structural error limited to a narrow class of cases)
State v. Wamsley, 117 Ohio St.3d 388 (2008) (structural error delineated; identifies very limited categories)
State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 (2004) (defines structural error parameters)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain-error standard guidance)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (presumption of proper consideration of 2929.12 when record silent)
State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 (2010) (reaffirmed discretion to impose consecutive sentences after Foster)
State v. Elmore, 122 Ohio St.3d 472 (2009) (trial court discretion post-Foster to impose consecutive sentences)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010) (confirms Bates/Foster-era sentencing discretion)