State v. Muhammad, 88834 (8-23-2007)

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

{¶ 1} Appellant Amir Muhammad appeals the trial court's imposition of maximum and consecutive sentences. Muhammad assigns the following errors for our review:

"I. Defendant's sentence was contrary to law, in that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant to maximum, consecutive terms without engaging in the analysis required by Ohio's sentencing statutes."

"II. Defendant's sentence was contrary to law, in that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to maximum, consecutive terms because said sentences were essentially imposed for crimes which had been…