State v. Wiseman, 2011 Ohio 6253

Wiseman pleaded guilty to four counts of breaking and entering (felony, fifth degree), one count of theft (misdemeanor, first degree), one count of aggravated arson (felony, first degree), one count of theft (felony, fifth degree), and one count of vandalism (felony, fifth degree) after a 20-count indictment; remaining counts were dismissed.
At sentencing, the trial court rejected a jointly recommended ten-year sentence and imposed an aggregate 16-year term (six 5th-degree felonies at 12 months each, one 1st-degree felony at ten years, one 1st-degree misdemeanor at 6 months).
Sentences were ordered to run consecutively, except the misdemeanor sentence which ran concurrent with the others.
Wiseman argued the court ignored the sentencing directives of R.C. 2929.11(A) and 2929.12 and that the ten-year state recommendation would better serve felony-sentencing purposes.
The state and Wiseman referenced applicable factors including seriousness, harm to victims, economic damage, recidivism risk, and prior criminal history as the basis for the court’s discretion.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law and not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the aggregate 16-year sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law	Wiseman argues the court ignored 2929.11(A) directives and the ten-year recommendation.	Wiseman contends the court should have followed the state’s recommendation to better achieve sentencing goals.	No; the sentence complied with law and was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (overarching sentencing framework and deference to trial court discretion)
State v. Voycik, 2009-Ohio-3669 (4th Dist. Nos. 08CA33 & 08CA34) (consecutive sentences within discretion; no need for stated reasons)
State v. Keyes, 4th Dist. No. 05CA16 (2006-Ohio-5032) (trial court not bound by state's sentencing recommendation)
State v. Ross, 2011-Ohio-1136 (Lawrence App. No. 10CA31) (Judgment not shocks conscience; standard of review for appellate sentences)
State v. Pierce, 2011-Ohio-5353 (Meigs App. No. 10CA10) (months vs. days; sentencing calculations considerations)