State v. White, 2020 Ohio 717

Deangelo T. White was indicted on multiple drug- and corruption-related felonies; he negotiated guilty pleas to: (1) Trafficking in Heroin (fourth-degree) and (2) Attempted Corrupting Another with Drugs (third-degree); other counts were dismissed.
Factual basis: July 19, 2016 — heroin sale within 1,000 feet of an elementary school; January 10, 2017 — sale that led to an overdose and a vehicle crash.
At sentencing the court imposed maximum terms within statutory ranges: 36 months (third-degree) + 18 months (fourth-degree), ordered consecutively for an aggregate 54 months.
White appealed, arguing the court abused discretion by imposing maximum and consecutive sentences despite mitigating factors (limited prior record, employment, family responsibilities, law‑abiding period since 2017).
The trial court stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; the appellate standard applied was R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) as explained in Marcum (reverse only on clear and convincing showing the record does not support findings or sentence is contrary to law).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing maximum prison terms	State: Sentences are within statutory ranges and the court considered statutory factors; record supports severity given proximity to school and overdose/crash.	White: Maximum terms unnecessary; only misdemeanors in history, rehabilitated since 2017, family/employment support shorter sentence.	Affirmed. Court acted within discretion; sentences fall in statutory ranges and were not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
Whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences	State: Court made the (C)(4) findings — consecutive terms necessary to punish/protect and (b) offenses were part of a course of conduct with unusually great harm.	White: Consecutive terms unsupported — minimal felony history, mitigating personal factors, harms do not require consecutive terms.	Affirmed. Court made the required findings on the record and in the entry; two distinct incidents with aggravating factors supported R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b).

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate reversal of felony sentence permitted only on clear-and-convincing showing sentence unsupported or contrary to law)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 when sentencing)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (consecutive-sentence findings must appear in the record and be incorporated in the judgment entry; no requirement to state supporting reasons)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (a stated consideration of statutory sentencing factors can satisfy the court's obligations)