State v. Bozarth, 2021 Ohio 14

Officer stopped Bozarth after a Circle K reported a shoplifting; Bozarth gave false names and was searched, yielding methamphetamine, paraphernalia, and other contraband.
Indicted for aggravated possession of methamphetamine (third-degree felony) with a forfeiture specification.
Bozarth pled guilty in December 2019 pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State recommended community control; the court accepted the plea but deferred disposition to obtain a PSI.
Original PSI (Jan. 3, 2020) was prepared before post-plea events; the probation department sent a later update letter reporting missed probation appointments and that Bozarth admitted using meth two days earlier after completing a residential program.
At sentencing (April 29, 2020) the court considered the PSI update, heard from defense counsel and Bozarth (who did not dispute the update), rejected community control, and imposed 30 months’ incarceration.
On appeal Bozarth argued (1) his due process rights were violated because the court relied on inaccurate information not in the PSI and (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to object to that information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing violated due process because the court relied on inaccurate post‑plea information not in the original PSI	State: Court lawfully considered the probation department's update and other record evidence when imposing a sentence within the statutory range	Bozarth: Court relied on false evidence of recent meth use (not in original PSI), depriving him of due process	Held: No due process violation — update letter was provided to the court before sentencing, Bozarth did not dispute it at the hearing, and the sentence was supported by the record
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to alleged false information at sentencing	State: Counsel reasonably addressed mitigation and likely knew of the update; strategic decisions at sentencing are presumptively reasonable	Bozarth: Counsel should have objected to and challenged the update letter’s statements; failure prejudiced sentencing outcome	Held: No ineffective assistance — counsel’s conduct was within reasonable professional norms and there is no reasonable probability of a different outcome

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio App. 2013) (trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range)
State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio App. 2011) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 but need not state specific findings)
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (sentencing statutory-policy considerations)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (application of Strickland in Ohio)
State v. Cook, 605 N.E.2d 70 (Ohio 1992) (deference to reasonable trial strategy)
State v. Fields, 84 N.E.3d 193 (Ohio App. 2017) (ineffective assistance and sentencing standards)