State v. Bahnsen, 2021 Ohio 3057

Brandon Bahnsen pleaded guilty to amended felony counts (obstructing justice, third-degree; aggravated drug trafficking, fourth-degree) and received five years of community control; the plea agreement expressly provided that if community control were revoked, Bahnsen would serve consecutive prison terms of 36 months and 18 months (aggregate 54 months).
The plea/judgment entries and the sentencing transcript reflect a jointly‑recommended sentence and Bahnsen’s written waiver of appellate review of the consecutive sentence factors.
Bahnsen admitted two separate community‑control violations (2019 and 2020/2021). After the first violation the court continued community control with additional conditions; after the second violation the court revoked community control and imposed the agreed 36‑ and 18‑month consecutive prison terms.
At the revocation hearing the court recited Bahnsen’s repeated noncompliance (employment misrepresentations, failure to maintain aftercare/sponsor, missed reporting, unpaid fines) and prior criminal history.
Bahnsen appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by imposing the 54‑month consecutive sentence, failed to consider R.C. 2929.11, and impermissibly relied on dismissed charges and earlier convictions. The court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposing the 54‑month consecutive term after revocation was an abuse of discretion	Bahnsen: sentence excessive/unreasonable after revocation	State: sentence was part of the joint plea recommendation and within court’s discretion	Court: sentence was jointly recommended and authorized by law; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars review except for legality; affirmed
Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11	Bahnsen: court did not consider statutory sentencing factors	State: court considered factors / presumption that court considered them	Court: even if reviewable, courts presume consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; primary ruling — sentence not reviewable due to joint recommendation
Whether the court improperly relied on dismissed indictment charges	Bahnsen: reliance on dismissed charges was improper	State: dismissed charges may be considered at sentencing	Court: trial courts may consider dismissed charges when sentencing; sentence not reviewable
Whether the court improperly relied on prior convictions (e.g., 2013 drug abuse, 2017 reckless operation)	Bahnsen: prior convictions were not proper basis	State: criminal history is a proper sentencing consideration	Court: a defendant’s criminal history may be considered; sentence not reviewable

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (Ohio 2020) (presumption that trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 on a silent record)