State v. Williams, 2013 Ohio 2201

Williams pled guilty to two counts of trafficking under R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), felonies of the fifth degree, as part of a plea; remaining counts were dismissed but the State reserved the right to present information at sentencing.
The Counts stemmed from a federal drug investigation of a cocaine dealer (J.P.) on Cleveland’s west side, including October 2011 wiretaps of Williams’ conversations arranging crack cocaine purchases or facilitation.
Sentencing occurred on August 28, 2012, with the court considering the PSI and the statutory sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
The court sentenced Williams to 12 months on each trafficking count, to run consecutively for a 2-year aggregate term, finding the harm and public danger warranted consecutive terms and noting Williams’ prior criminal history.
The State, citing Williams’ failure to object at the hearing, argued for affirmance; Williams challenged the rulings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), but the court’s findings were supported by the record.
The court concluded the record showed proper analysis under RC 2929.14(C)(4), including Williams’ criminal history, the conduct’s impact, and the need to protect the public; Williams appealed arguing reliance on outside-record considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly found the RC 2929.14(C)(4) factors for consecutive sentences.	State contends the court made the statutorily required, record-supported findings.	Williams argues the court relied on hearsay and outside-record factors not supported by the record.	Affirmed the sentences; findings supported by the record.
Whether the use of wiretap evidence and community-harm discussions invalidated the findings.	State asserts wiretap data and impact on the community are proper sentencing factors.	Williams argues these considerations were improper outside evidence.	Findings supported; court properly considered relevant factors; no reversible error.

State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (permissible discretion in weighing sentencing factors; not required to divorce from experience)
State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (trial court may consider relevant evidence and arguments at sentencing)
State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 (1992) (discretion in sentencing; not vacuum decision)
State v. Fox, 69 Ohio St.3d 183 (1994) (weight given to statutory factors is within trial court’s discretion)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (discretion in determining weight of factors and consequences)