State v. Caraballo, 2014 Ohio 2641

Defendant Emilio Caraballo (21) was accused of sexual misconduct with a five‑year‑old who stayed at his home; the child reported that “Uncle Emilio stuck his pee pee in my” and a mark was observed on her inner thigh.
Prosecutor originally charged two counts of rape, two counts of kidnapping (with sexual motivation specifications), and two counts of gross sexual imposition.
Caraballo pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain to one count of gross sexual imposition (a fourth‑degree felony) and one count of unlawful restraint (misdemeanor); the offenses were merged for sentencing.
The trial court imposed an 18‑month prison term (the statutory maximum for a fourth‑degree felony) and classified Caraballo as a Tier I sex offender.
At sentencing defense counsel urged community control, citing no criminal history and a PSI risk assessment of low–moderate recidivism; the court expressed doubts about the child’s ability to fabricate but offered withdrawal of the plea, which Caraballo declined.
The court found aggravating factors (victim’s young age, serious physical/psychological harm, abuse of relationship/trust, lack of remorse, risk of reoffense) and stated it had considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 before imposing the maximum term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the 18‑month sentence within the statutory range?	Yes — 18 months is within the statutory range for a fourth‑degree felony.	Argued sentence was excessive/contrary to law.	Held: Within statutory range; not contrary to law.
Did the trial court properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12?	Yes — court expressly acknowledged statutory purposes and articulated relevant R.C. 2929.12 factors.	Argued the court failed to properly consider purposes/principles and factors and thus abused discretion.	Held: Court adequately considered the statutes on the record; sentence affirmed.

None with official reporter citations are cited in the opinion (the decision primarily cites Ohio cases by name and a slip opinion).