State v. Burley, 2017 Ohio 378

Louis Burley pled no contest to two Youngstown Municipal Court matters in 2015: a fourth-degree misdemeanor DUS (15 TRD 163) and a first‑degree misdemeanor for DUS plus excessive vehicular sound amplification (15 TRD 1934). Each case carried one year intensive probation and fines/community service options.
In March 2016 Burley was charged with probation violations: missed probation reporting dates, a new February 2016 DUS conviction while on probation, and failure timely to complete community service (financial sanctions later paid).
Burley stipulated to probable cause and ultimately to the probation‑violation findings. At sentencing he offered explanations including confusion about dates and post‑accident incapacitation.
The court found three separate violations and sentenced Burley to 20 days in 15 TRD 163 and 180 days (loud music) plus 30 days (DUS) in 15 TRD 1934; the combined total was 210 days (sentences in the two cases ran concurrent to each other, while two counts in 15 TRD 1934 ran consecutively).
Burley appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by imposing maximum and consecutive misdemeanor jail terms without properly considering or stating the R.C. 2929.21/2929.22 misdemeanor sentencing factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing maximum/consecutive misdemeanor jail terms for probation violations without expressly stating consideration of R.C. 2929.21/2929.22 factors	State: Court reasonably concluded prior sanctions did not deter Burley; record shows court considered nature and circumstances and risk of reoffending; maximum jail term justified for repeated probation violations	Burley: Court failed to engage with or state consideration of statutory misdemeanor sentencing criteria and used improper motivations (court’s remarks showed arbitrariness)	No abuse of discretion. Appellate court presumes trial court considered statutory factors absent affirmative showing otherwise; record supports reasoned sentencing given multiple distinct probation violations and risk of reoffending.

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (addresses constitutional limits on judicial fact‑finding that increase punishment)
AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (defines abuse of discretion and when a decision is unreasonable)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (same; explains abuse of discretion standard)