State v. Coutcher, 2021 Ohio 2620

Appellant Bryan Coutcher was charged with third-degree felony domestic violence after a physical altercation with his blind, live-in girlfriend in which he pushed her, threw items (including a beer can), and caused visible injuries.
Prosecutor amended the charge to domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor; Coutcher withdrew his not-guilty plea and entered no contest.
On June 30, 2020, the municipal court accepted the plea and sentenced Coutcher to 180 days in jail (credit for time served; 90 days suspended), two years active probation, substance-abuse assessment, and a domestic-violence program.
Coutcher appealed, arguing the trial court violated R.C. 2929.21 by imposing the maximum misdemeanor jail term without properly considering misdemeanor sentencing purposes and mitigating factors.
The State and trial court relied on statutory maximums and facts in the record (victim’s blindness, visible injuries, defendant’s substance-abuse/anger issues) to justify the sentence.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the sentence within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing the maximum 180‑day jail term for a first‑degree misdemeanor domestic violence conviction in violation of R.C. 2929.21’s purposes and required considerations	Coutcher: imposition of maximum sentence was unreasonable and lacked appropriate consideration of misdemeanor sentencing goals and mitigating factors	State/Trial court: sentence was within statutory limits; court is presumed to have considered statutory factors; aggravating facts (victim vulnerable, visible injuries, defendant’s substance/anger issues) justified sentence	Affirmed. Court found no abuse of discretion; sentence was within statutory limits and reasonably calculated to achieve misdemeanor sentencing purposes

State v. Coyle, 14 Ohio App.3d 185 (9th Dist. 1984) (appellate court will not find abuse of discretion where sentence is within statutory limits)
State v. Gould, 68 Ohio App.2d 215 (1st Dist. 1980) (trial judge presumed to have considered relevant factors absent evidence to the contrary)
State v. Crouse, 39 Ohio App.3d 18 (2d Dist. 1987) (presumption that sentencing court considered statutory mitigating criteria when sentence is within limits)