State v. Archer, 2019 Ohio 171

Thomas Archer was indicted for rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) and gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) based on separate sexual acts against two minor children of his former live-in girlfriend: oral sex with a 2‑year‑old and digital contact with a 5‑year‑old.
Archer pleaded guilty after the State reduced the rape charge to the lesser-included offense of sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(5)). The trial court accepted the plea and ordered a PSI.
At sentencing the court imposed concurrent prison terms of 60 months on each count (the statutory maximum for third-degree felonies), and Archer appealed the sentence.
Archer argued the trial court failed to properly consider statutory sentencing factors: the “less serious” factor (R.C. 2929.12(C)(3)) and the “recidivism less likely” factor (R.C. 2929.12(E)(5)), so the maximum sentences were contrary to law.
The State responded that the sentence was within the statutory range, that the court indicated it considered 2929.11/2929.12, and that the record supported the court’s conclusions about remorse and harm.
The trial court’s journal entry stated it considered sentencing principles and weighed seriousness and recidivism factors; the appellate court reviewed the record and found no clear and convincing evidence the sentence was contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing maximum concurrent 60‑month terms without considering R.C. 2929.12(C)(3) (less serious) and 2929.12(E)(5) (recidivism less likely)	Archer: court failed to consider victims suffered no physical harm and that his guilty plea and stated remorse showed recidivism was less likely, so maximum imprisonment was improper	State: sentence was within statutory range; court said it considered 2929.11/2929.12; record shows denial of responsibility and possible harm, undermining mitigation arguments	Court affirmed: sentence within statutory range; presumption that court considered statutory factors; Archer failed to show by clear and convincing evidence the sentence was contrary to law

Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences — modify or vacate only if clear and convincing evidence sentence unsupported or contrary to law)
Foster v. State, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range; no requirement to make specific findings for maximum or consecutive sentences)
Kalish v. State, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (appellate review standard for felony sentences and presumption of proper consideration when court does not recite statutory factors)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)