In State v. Daniels, 3d. Dist. No. 12-03-12, 2004 Ohio 2063, the Court reversed the trial court's conviction because the bill of information failed to state an essential element of child endangering, and thus, was not a satisfactory charging document. Id. at P3. The Court further found that the maximum and consecutive arguments to be moot because we reversed the conviction. Id. at P4. On remand, the trial court acknowledged that this court's decision in Daniels had not affected the trial court's conviction and sentence on the involuntary manslaughter charge. Daniels, 2005 Ohio 1920, at P7. Thereafter, Daniels again waived his right to an indictment and pled guilty to an amended bill of information of one count of endangering children, a violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)&(E)(2)(d) and a second degree felony. Id. The trial court then sentenced Daniels to eight years on the child endangering charge. Id. at P8. The trial court also ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to the ten year sentence that Daniels had received for the involuntary manslaughter charge. Id. Daniels filed an appeal with this court arguing that the trial court failed to state the reasons for sentencing him to maximum and consecutive sentences on the record at the sentencing hearing. Daniels, 2005 Ohio 1920. Daniels also argued, on appeal, that his sentence was unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403. Id. The Court affirmed the trial court's sentence and held that the trial court made the necessary statutory findings to impose maximum and consecutive sentences on the record and stated its reasons for making the statutory findings. Id. at P15. The Court further held that the holding in Blakely did not apply to Ohio's sentencing framework based on our previous holding in State v. Trubee, 3d Dist. No. 9-03-65, 2005 Ohio 552. Id. at P16.