State v. Upkins, 2013 Ohio 3986

Upkins was indicted on four counts of trafficking in drugs (Clonazepam) in Shelby County, Ohio, alleging four separate sales to a confidential informant.
A jury convicted Upkins on all four counts on December 29, 2011.
In February 2012, the trial court sentenced Upkins to nine months on each count, to be served consecutively for a total of 36 months.
This Court previously remanded for the trial court to make the required statutory findings before imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
On January 15, 2013, the trial court resentenced Upkins to consecutive terms, and Upkins appeals contending the court failed to properly make the required statutory findings and that the sentence is unsupported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court properly make the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	Upkins argues the court failed to engage in meaningful analysis beyond citing the statute.	Upkins contends the recitation of statutory language is insufficient to justify the findings.	Yes; the court’s findings satisfied the statute by reciting the legislative criteria.
Is the consecutive-sentencing rationale consistent with 2929.11, 2929.12, and 2929.14(C)(4), and supported by the record	Upkins contends the sentence is not supported by the record and not in line with the purposes of sentencing.	The State argues the record shows a continuing course of conduct and appropriate factors support consecutive terms.	Yes; the record demonstrates compliance with the purposes and principles of sentencing and support for consecutive sentences.

State v. Ramos, 2007-Ohio-767 (3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-06-24, 2007) (establishes standard of review for consecutive sentencing challenges)
State v. Goins, 2013-Ohio-263 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98256) (consecutive-sentence findings need not be accompanied by extra analysis; recital suffices)
State v. McKinley, 2012-Ohio-6117 (3rd Dist. Van Wert No. 15-12-07) (supports permissible recitation of statutory findings for consecutive sentences)
State v. Wright, 2013-Ohio-3132 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98901) (recognizes no requirement of separate analytical narrative beyond statutory findings)
State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98682) (discusses interpretation of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and separate findings)
State v. Nowlin, 2012-Ohio-4923 (5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2012-0015) (analyzes required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4))
State v. Smith, 2012-Ohio-4523 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA-2012-01-004) (contributes to interpretation of consecutive-sentencing requirements)
State v. Pence, 2012-Ohio-1794 (3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-11-18) (discusses purposes and principles of felony sentencing)