State v. Buck, 2021 Ohio 1073

August 2019: Appellant Tahra Buck was indicted for theft from a person in a protected class (4th‑degree felony).
January 20, 2020: Buck pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend community control (no prison).
The trial court accepted the plea, ordered a presentence interview, and scheduled sentencing for March 3, 2020.
March 4, 2020: Despite the State’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced Buck to 17 months’ imprisonment.
Buck appealed, arguing the court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 mitigating factors (e.g., need for substance‑abuse treatment, no physical harm) and thus abused its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 17‑month prison sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and should have imposed community control	Buck: Court ignored mitigating factors and exceeded the minimum sanction; community control was appropriate	State: Trial court is presumed to have considered statutory factors; sentence is within statutory range and within discretion	Affirmed — appellate court may not reweigh sentencing; presumption of consideration applies; Buck’s claim not well‑taken

State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1 (2017) (presumes trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 even on a silent record)
State v. Cyrus, 63 Ohio St.3d 164, 586 N.E.2d 94 (1992) (same presumption regarding consideration of sentencing statutes)