State v. Walker, 2020 Ohio 4512

Walker was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for speeding; trooper smelled marijuana and found baggies containing 229.31 grams of a heroin compound and 1.01 grams of marijuana. Walker and the driver, Alford, were arrested.
Walker was indicted for one count of first-degree felony possession of heroin; a major-drug-offender specification was dismissed; he pled guilty.
A presentence investigation (PSI) recommended an eight-year prison term; sentencing was continued after Walker failed to appear for an earlier hearing.
At sentencing the court considered the PSI, Walker’s statement, and a community letter; the court noted Walker’s substantial adult criminal history, prior prison terms, and that he was on bond/supervised release at the time of the offense with multiple reporting failures.
The trial court imposed an eight-year prison sentence (within the 3–11 year statutory range and mandatory under R.C. 2929.13(F)(5)); Walker appealed claiming the sentence was unsupported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walker’s sentence was unsupported by the record / contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)	The trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, relied on the PSI (which recommended 8 years), and imposed a sentence within the statutory range.	The trial court failed to properly weigh sentencing purposes and the R.C. 2929.12 seriousness/recidivism factors; PSI risk score was “moderate,” so an 8-year term was excessive.	Affirmed. Appellant did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence was contrary to law or unsupported; court reasonably applied statutory factors and stayed within the range.
Whether Walker’s 8-year sentence was inconsistent with co-defendant Alford’s 4-year term	Differences in criminal histories justify different sentences; consistency requires consideration of statutory factors, not identical sentences.	Alford received only 4 years for the same offense, so Walker’s 8 years is inconsistent.	Affirmed. The disparity was justified by Walker’s more serious adult criminal history and prior felonies; consistency was satisfied by application of R.C. 2929.12 factors.

State v. McGowan, 62 N.E.3d 178 (2016) (appellate authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to modify sentence if contrary to law or unsupported by the record)
Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (definition of "clear and convincing" standard)
State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (2013) (trial court has broad discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range)
State v. Moore, 24 N.E.3d 1197 (2014) (consistency in sentencing relates to context of sentences for other offenders)
State v. Hall, 903 N.E.2d 676 (2008) (consistency does not require uniformity)
State v. Castle, 67 N.E.3d 1283 (2016) (affirming imposition of a maximum sentence despite a moderate PSI risk recommendation)