State v. Stein, 2012 Ohio 2502

Stein was indicted on 102 counts relating to child pornography in Dec 2010; pled guilty in Aug 2011 to multiple pandering, illegal use, and tools offenses with forfeiture.
Trial court imposed an aggregate 10-year sentence: 5 years for one count, 5 years on each of 54 counts (concurrent) but consecutive to Count 1, 5 years on 24 counts (concurrent to others), and 1 year for tools.
Court ordered forfeitures of cameras, electronics, and media; notified of five years postrelease control; labeled Tier II sex offender.
Trial court relied on PSI and a psychological report; heard testimony from Dr. Aronoff and defense/wife; considered 2929.12 factors though discussed them expressly.
Appellate court reviewed under Kalish two-prong standard and affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion or due process violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ten-year sentence is contrary to law	Stein argues consecutive terms and greater-than-minimum term violate Kalish.	Stein contends sentence is excessive given treatment efforts.	Not contrary to law; no abuse of discretion.
Whether sentence is disproportionate to similar offenses	Stein claimed countywide sentences for similar offenses are lower.	Stein argues misalignment with peers.	No reversible error; list of cases insufficient to compare.
Whether court relied on prejudicial matters outside the record	Trial court cited evils of child pornography and LimeWire as organized crime.	Statements were improper outside-record matters.	No abuse of discretion; statements did not erase proper sentencing factors.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-prong review of felony sentences)
State v. Mahan, 2011-Ohio-5154 (8th Dist. No. 95696, 2011) (discretion in sentencing for extensive counts; within range)