State v. Colburn, 2016 Ohio 165

In May 2013 Chad A. Colburn burglarized a Wadsworth home while purportedly selling coupon books; indicted for one count of third-degree felony burglary.
Colburn pleaded no contest; trial court found him guilty and ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).
After reviewing the PSI, the court sentenced Colburn to the statutory maximum of 36 months imprisonment, to run concurrent with a separate Richland County sentence.
Colburn appealed solely arguing the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence without making explicit R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 findings or finding the offense was the worst form.
The PSI reflected an extensive criminal history (theft, drug/alcohol offenses, prior felonies), admission that the burglary supported a drug habit, and an Ohio Risk Assessment score of "Very High Risk Offender."
The trial court stated it considered the PSI and concluded a 36-month term was necessary to punish Colburn and protect the public.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing to the statutory maximum was an abuse of discretion	State: sentence within statutory range and supported by PSI showing need for punishment/protection	Colburn: court erred by imposing maximum without explicit R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 findings; conduct not worst form	Court affirmed: within statutory discretion; presumption trial court considered statutory factors when sentence within range and record does not show failure to consider them

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (establishes two-step appellate review of felony sentences and presumption of consideration when within statutory range)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory range)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (trial courts must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in sentencing, but need not make express findings)