finding at the sentencing hearing in Ohio

2014No. 13 CA 82, 2014-Ohio-1965, ¶27 .

2014The court must have made the finding at the sentencing hearing. {¶ 30} The transcript of the sentencing hearing must make it “clear from the record that the trial court engaged in the appropriate analysis.” State v. Hill, 7th Dist. -9- No. 13 CA 82, 2014-Ohio-1965, ¶27 .

2004R.C. 2929.19 (B)(2) requires that the trial court find that one of the scenarios listed in R.C. 2929.14 (C) exists and give its reasons for selecting that sentence when the court imposes the maximum prison term allowed. {¶ 10} In State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the imposition of consecutive sentences, finding that trial court must state both the required statutory finding supporting the consecutive sentence and the reasons supporting such a finding at the sentencing hearing.

2004State v. Comer (2003), 99 Ohio St.3d 463 -469. {¶ 36} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court made the following statement: {¶ 37} "I do believe that this Defendant is a danger in this and any other community that he resides in.

2023The court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender, that they were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Appellant's conduct and the danger he posed, and that at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct with a harm so great or unusual that a single term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct. (2/9/22 Tr., pp. 22-23.) The findings were incorporated into its sentencing entry. {¶22} Appellant contends that the court failed to accurately make a find

2023The court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender, that they were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Appellant's conduct and the danger he posed, and that at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct with a harm so great or unusual that a single term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct. (2/9/22 Tr., pp. 22-23.) The findings were incorporated into its sentencing entry. {¶22} Appellant contends that the court failed to accurately make a find

2023The court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender, that they were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Appellant's conduct and the danger he posed, and that at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct with a harm so great or unusual that a single term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct. (2/9/22 Tr., pp. 22-23.) The findings were incorporated into its sentencing entry. {¶22} Appellant contends that the court failed to accurately make a find

2022State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 21.

2022State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 21.

2020State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2019-Ohio-4761 , 141 N.E.3d 169 (“[F]ailure to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and incorporate them into a defendant’s sentencing entry renders the sentence contrary to law.”).

2005See, Comer, supra (sentencing court must make findings on the record at the time of sentencing). {¶ 107} Furthermore, when imposing more than a minimum sentence on an offender who has not previously served a prison term, the trial court is required to find that a minimum sentence "would demean the seriousness of the offender's conduct or not adequately protect the public from future crime by the offender or others." R.C. 2929.14 (B); Comer, supra; State v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 326 .