State v. Denney, 2021 Ohio 2090

Dawson Denney pled guilty to burglary (third-degree felony under R.C. 2911.12(A)(3)) and received a three-year maximum prison term.
Denney appealed, claiming the trial court erred by imposing a maximum sentence.
The appellate standard for modifying/vacating a sentence is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), which permits relief only if the sentence is contrary to law or the record fails to support required statutory findings.
The record shows the trial court considered sentencing principles (R.C. 2929.11) and seriousness/recidivism factors (R.C. 2929.12), noted a co-conspirator, about $30,000 in victim damage, and that Denney committed the offense while on probation.
The court held Denney’s sentence was within the statutory range, not contrary to law, and the trial court was not required to make additional findings before imposing the sentence.
Judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is contrary to law or unsupported under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)	Sentence is within statutory range and not contrary to law; appellate relief not warranted	Maximum sentence violates sentencing law and should be reduced	Affirmed: sentence within range and not contrary to law; appellate review limited by statute
Whether the maximum sentence violated R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 (principles and consistency)	Trial court considered 2929.11/2929.12; facts (co-conspirator, $30k damage, on probation) support maximum	Denney argues the maximum is inconsistent with sentencing principles and factors	Affirmed: court presumed to have considered statutes; record supports sentencing choice; appellate court will not reweigh evidence

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (explaining the limited scope of appellate review for felony sentences and admonishing that appellate courts should not reweigh sentencing evidence).