State v. Wells, 2014 Ohio 3032

Appellant Wells was indicted for rape and kidnapping of P.H. on April 15, 2012, with firearm and SVP specifications; he pleaded guilty to rape, a first-degree felony, and other counts were dismissed.
The trial court accepted the plea, ordered a presentence investigation, and set sentencing for July 1, 2013.
At sentencing, the court imposed an 11-year rape sentence to run consecutively to a one-year sentence in a separate case.
Wells appeals, challenging the sentence as contrary to law and an abuse of discretion, and claiming the court improperly considered uncharged acts.
The court reverses in part, affirms in part, and remands for limited resentencing because the court failed to make necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences.
On remand, the trial court must address consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or order concurrent terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is contrary to law or an abuse of discretion	Wells argues the 12-year total is excessive and/or improperly derived.	Wells contends the court failed to properly apply sentencing statutes and principles.	Partial reversal: some aspects affirmed; remanded to correct consecutive-sentencing findings.
Whether the court improperly considered uncharged acts in sentencing	PSI inaccuracies or uncharged acts were used to justify punishment.	Absent preservation, uncharged acts’ consideration is improper if relied upon for punishment.	Court properly considered relevant factors; no improper punishment based on uncharged acts; remand on findings remains.
Whether the court made the required findings to impose consecutive sentences	The court did not articulate the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.	The court found factors supporting consecutiveness but did not address proportionality to harms.	Consecutive-sentence findings were inadequate; remanded for proper findings or concurrent sentencing.
Whether the PSI review complied with R.C. 2951.03(B)(2)-(5) and whether inaccuracies affected sentencing	Inaccuracies in the PSI were present and should have been resolved against the state.	The court reviewed and found no inaccuracies or relied on the PSI appropriately.	Court correctly addressed inaccuracies; PSI compliance affirmed.

State v. Conner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99557, 2014-Ohio-601 (2014-Ohio-601) (standard for reviewing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08 governs appeal)
State v. Nia, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99387, 2014-Ohio-2527 (2014-Ohio-2527) (requires specific findings to impose consecutive sentences)
State v. Lababidi, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100242, 2014-Ohio-2267 (2014-Ohio-2267) (consistency described as proper weighing of sentencing factors, not proportionality)
State v. Sutton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97132, 2012-Ohio-1054 (2012-Ohio-1054) (interpretation of consistency vs. proportionality in sentencing)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 846 N.E.2d 824 (2006-Ohio-1245) (proportionality focus on individual sentences within statutory ranges)
State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368, 715 N.E.2d 167 (1999) (proportionality analysis framework for felony sentencing)
State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100042, 2014-Ohio-1618 (2014-Ohio-1618) (presumption of validity for sentences within statutory bounds)
State v. Spock, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99950, 2014-Ohio-606 (2014-Ohio-606) (preservation and review of error in sentencing context)
State v. Witt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94800, 2011-Ohio-336 (2011-Ohio-336) (courts may consider PSI in sentencing and must resolve inaccuracies)