State v. Timberling, 2013 Ohio 1377

Timberling violated a protection order issued by Jacaruso on four occasions in 2011; all communications were innocuous and did not threaten harm or involve physical contact.
Timberling has a prior related to Jacaruso, including a 2004 abduction conviction (pleaded guilty) and a 2009 violation of a protection order that resulted in nine months’ imprisonment.
In 2011 Timberling was indicted on four counts of violating the protection order and two counts of stalking; the stalking counts were dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea to the four protection-order violations.
Timberling pleaded guilty to the four protection-order violations on February 23, 2012; he requested a mental-health evaluation under R.C. 2919.271(B), which produced a psychological report.
At sentencing (April 13, 2012) the court ordered consecutive sentences totaling 42 months for the four counts; the court did not consider Timberling’s first psychological report after denying a request for a second report.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were unlawful.	Timberling argues no harm was shown and sentences should not run consecutively.	Timberling contends court failed to justify need for consecutive terms.	Not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; consecutive terms affirmed.
Whether denial of a second psychological report was an abuse of discretion.	Timberling asserts a second report would aid sentencing.	Court properly exercised discretion in denying a second report.	Not an abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124 (2008) (guidance on reviewing felony-sentence decisions under 2929.11–2929.12)
State v. Bray, - (-) (discretionary nature of sentencing considerations (cited for abuse-of-discretion standard))
AAAA Ent., Inc. v. River Place Cmty. Urb. Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990) (defining abuse-of-discretion standard)