State v. D'Amico, 2015 Ohio 278

On March 17, 2013, Thomas D’Amico attacked Richard Fugo by breaking a beer bottle over his head and attempting to stab his neck; D’Amico was indicted for felonious assault, menacing by stalking, aggravated menacing, and violating a protection order.
D’Amico pleaded guilty to felonious assault and violating a protection order; remaining counts were dismissed.
At sentencing the court reviewed a video, the presentence investigation report, and heard victim statements from Fugo and M.S. (D’Amico’s former wife), plus D’Amico’s allocution.
M.S. described prior alleged abuse by D’Amico (uncharged conduct); the state argues these statements provided context for the offense and the protection-order violation.
The trial court sentenced D’Amico to seven years’ imprisonment and explicitly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and victim harm in imposing sentence.
D’Amico appealed, arguing the trial court improperly relied on uncharged/unindicted conduct in sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by considering uncharged conduct (alleged prior abuse of M.S.) at sentencing	State: sentencing court may consider victim statements and relevant information at sentencing	D'Amico: court relied on conduct for which he was never charged or convicted, making sentence contrary to law	Court: no error — uncharged acts may be considered so long as they are not the sole basis for sentence; record shows court focused on the Fugo attack and other proper factors

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (sets two-step standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1949) (trial courts may consider a wide range of information at sentencing beyond the conviction evidence)
State v. Bowser, 186 Ohio App.3d 162 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (acknowledging broad discretion in sources and types of evidence a sentencing court may use)