State v. Drought, 2017 Ohio 1415

In July 2015, Steven S. Drought and neighbors chased a speeding driver (Daniel Luyando) after police released him; Drought’s vehicle collided with Luyando’s car and a mailbox; no physical injuries resulted.
Drought admitted involvement, said he intended to confront Luyando, and was initially charged with felonious assault.
While charges were pending, Drought’s bond was revoked after he missed a pretrial hearing (he claimed a misunderstanding).
Drought pleaded guilty to attempted felonious assault (third-degree felony).
The trial court sentenced Drought to 18 months imprisonment; Drought appealed, arguing the court failed to consider statutory sentencing factors (R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12).
The presentence investigation reflected prior convictions (drug paraphernalia, theft, aggravated disorderly conduct), numerous traffic convictions and license suspensions, and illicit drug use.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is contrary to law because the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12	State: sentence within statutory range and supported by record; court stated it considered statutory factors	Drought: trial court did not meaningfully consider mitigating factors (acceptance of responsibility, no prison history, induced offense)	Court affirmed: record rebuts defendant’s claim; court said it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and sentence is supported

Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard: can modify/vacate sentence only upon clear-and-convincing showing that record does not support sentence)
Arnett v. State, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (court not required to state on record its consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors)
Adams v. State, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 (1988) (silent record presumes trial court considered R.C. 2929.12)
Cyrus v. State, 63 Ohio St.3d 164 (1992) (defendant bears burden to rebut presumption that sentencing factors were considered)