State v. DeNiro, 2013 Ohio 2826

Two cases: 11 CR 517 (Dillard’s theft and failure to comply) and 12 CR 73 (Target theft; possessing criminal tools not charged).
Appellant pleaded guilty in both cases on August 10, 2012: failure to comply (4th degree felony) and theft (5th degree felony).
Factual basis: Dillard’s theft involved speeds >100 mph and running a red light during pursuit; Target theft involved headphones and prior shoplifting pattern.
Appellant committed offenses while on post-release control; court found numerous prior convictions and long criminal history.
Sentencing: 18 months for failure to comply, 12 months for post-release control violation (consecutive), 12 months for theft (consecutive), totaling 42 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the sentence an abuse of discretion within statutory limits?	State argues court properly weighed factors and within range.	DeNiro contends court gave inadequate weight to remorse and certain factors.	No abuse; sentence within statutory range and supported by record.

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (trial courts need not state reasons for maximum terms; must consider sentencing factors)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step Kalish test: structural compliance and no clearly/convincingly contrary-to-law review, then discretionary merits)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (trial court need not make specific statutory-factor findings; must consider factors)
State v. Spencer, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-002 (2008-Ohio-3906) (within-range sentencing supported when record shows consideration of factors)