State v. Battle, 2014 Ohio 4502

Battle was arrested July 5, 2013, on Pine Street after officers observed him lighting a firework and fleeing when approached.
Officers found a torn plastic baggie with crack cocaine and loose money Battle threw while running; a brown baggie with crack cocaine was recovered.
Battle was charged with possession of drugs, obstructing official business, tampering with evidence, and use of fireworks; later indicted on possession of cocaine and tampering.
Battle pled guilty to possession of cocaine (a fourth-degree felony); the tampering charge was dismissed in exchange for the plea.
The trial court imposed an 18-month prison term and a five-year driver’s-license suspension; Battle appeals claiming the sentence is excessive and that risk-reduction sentencing was not considered.
The court reviews the sentence under the standard later described in Rodefer, applying R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 to determine if it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court erred in imposing an excessive sentence	Battle argues the sentence is excessive and not in line with 2929.11, 2929.12	Battle contends the court failed to properly apply sentencing factors and principles	Sentence within statutory range; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law
Whether the court properly considered a risk reduction sentence	Battle asserts failure to consider risk reduction under 2929.143	Court did not expressly consider risk reduction but 2929.143 is discretionary	Overruled; risk reduction consideration not mandatory to be stated on record

State v. Rodefer, 2013-Ohio-5759 (2d Dist.) (redefines review of felony sentences under 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (historic framework for determining whether a sentence is contrary to law when within range)
State v. Miller, 2010-Ohio-2138 (2d Dist. Clark) (sentence not contrary to law if journal entry shows consideration of 2929.11 and 2929.12)