State v. Clay

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 1499

Syllabus

Consecutive sentence finding seriousness criminal history mitigation remorse trial court factors sentencing factor punish protect felony sentence purposes offender contrary to law principles recidivism. Defendant's sentence was not contrary to law. The trial court made the necessary findings for imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported. There was no objective information in the record to suggest that the court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in formulating the sentence, or relied on demonstrably false or inaccurate information when making these considerations.