State v. Stewart, 2017 Ohio 740

Taylor Stewart pleaded guilty to attempted felonious assault (third-degree felony), attempted intimidation of a crime victim or witness (fourth-degree felony), and violating a protection order (first-degree misdemeanor). Other counts were nolled.
The trial court sentenced Stewart to 36 months for attempted felonious assault, 18 months for attempted intimidation, and time served for the misdemeanor, ordered to run consecutively for a total of 54 months.
At sentencing the victim described ongoing fear, physical injuries (including a facial scar and eye injury with lingering vision problems), loss of employment, and repeated violations of protection/no-contact orders by Stewart.
Stewart argued the court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors (youth, first domestic violence case, CBCF acceptance, history of abuse) and that community control would be more appropriate.
Stewart also argued the court did not make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
The trial court stated it considered all required statutory factors and expressly found consecutive sentences were necessary, proportionate, and supported by the circumstances (offenses committed while awaiting trial/multiple-course conduct/serious harm or criminal history).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is contrary to law for failure to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	State: Court complied with statutes; record supports prison to protect public and punish	Stewart: Court failed to properly consider and weigh statutory purposes and seriousness/recidivism factors; community control preferable	Court: No error — journal and record show the court considered required factors; sentencing within statutory range and not contrary to law
Whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: Court made the three required findings and record supports them	Stewart: Court did not make required findings and record does not support consecutive terms	Court: No error — trial court made necessary findings on protection/punishment, proportionality, and applicable statutory bases; record supports findings

State v. Arnett, 99 Ohio St.3d 208, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000) (trial court has discretion to weigh sentencing factors)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (appellate review of consecutive sentences requires only that record permit discernment of required statutory analysis)