State v. Thomas, 2016 Ohio 1221

David Thomas (71) pled guilty to five counts of third-degree gross sexual imposition involving his two young grandchildren after stipulating the counts were not allied.
The plea was entered after the state amended counts to delete sexually violent predator specifications; at the plea hearing the court advised Thomas of possible prison or community control and maximum terms.
Investigators found child pornography (mostly images of the granddaughter); Thomas admitted photographing the 5‑year‑old granddaughter and 4‑year‑old grandson, masturbating while viewing and sharing images online, and engaging in inappropriate sexual contact.
Thomas had already received a 16‑year sentence in a separate Medina County prosecution for related child‑pornography offenses.
At sentencing a different judge characterized the crimes as "horrible" and "unspeakable," classified Thomas as a Tier III sex offender, and imposed consecutive maximum terms of five years on each count (total 25 years), plus five years postrelease control; the court stated consecutive terms were necessary and not disproportionate.
Thomas appealed, arguing (1) his guilty plea was not knowing/voluntary because the trial court failed to inform him he was ineligible for community control/probation, and (2) the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without proper findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thomas’s plea was knowing/voluntary because the court failed to advise he was ineligible for community control/probation	State: Plea colloquy properly advised of nature, maximum penalty, and possible community control; Bevly had been decided before plea so advisement was correct	Thomas: At sentencing the court said prison was mandatory, so his earlier plea was uninformed and not voluntary	Court: Overruled. Plea colloquy at change of plea properly advised eligibility; subsequent sentencing remarks do not invalidate plea.
Whether the trial court made the statutory findings required to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: Record shows the court considered need to protect the public, punishment, proportionality, and that offenses were part of a course of conduct causing great/unusual harm; findings incorporated in entry	Thomas: Court did not expressly state on the record that consecutive terms were not disproportionate to "the danger the offender poses to the public"	Court: Overruled. Court’s remarks and written entry reflect the required analysis and findings; exact statutory phrasing not required.

State v. Bevly, 142 Ohio St.3d 41 (Ohio 2015) (struck down statutory mandatory prison provision in R.C. 2907.05(C)(2)(a))
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them in the entry; exact statutory language not required)