State v. Baskin, 2016 Ohio 7346

Defendant Deandre Baskin pleaded guilty to two counts of violating a protection order (R.C. 2919.27), both fifth-degree felonies, from separate incidents occurring shortly after a protection order issued in November 2015.
After a bond condition ordering no contact with the victim, Baskin committed a subsequent violation while on personal recognizance, prompting bond revocation and a second prosecution.
At sentencing the court received a PSI showing an extensive history of violent and supervision-related offenses (including a prior 10-year rape conviction and multiple domestic-violence-related convictions), and evidence of poor response to sanctions.
The trial court imposed the maximum one-year prison term on each count and ordered the terms to run consecutively for a total stated term of 24 months.
Baskin appealed, arguing the trial court failed to properly consider statutory sentencing factors (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12), that the ORAS score indicated only moderate risk, that there is a presumption against prison for fifth-degree felonies, and that the victim’s testimony mitigated culpability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Baskin)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in imposing maximum and consecutive sentences as contrary to law / without proper statutory consideration	Sentence is supported: court considered defendant’s extensive criminal history, prior prison term, bond violation, and poor response to sanctions; consecutive findings were made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	ORAS score (17) shows moderate risk; presumption against prison for 4th/5th-degree felonies; victim’s testimony suggested she facilitated contact, mitigating culpability	Affirmed. Appellate court found by clear and convincing evidence the record supports maximum and consecutive sentences; trial court permissibly assessed credibility and relied on defendant’s history and bond violation to overcome presumption against prison

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial courts have discretion to impose any prison term within statutory range without mandatory findings for maximum sentences)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)