State v. Drought, 2017 Ohio 1415

In July 2015, Steven S. Drought and neighbors chased a speeding driver (Daniel Luyando) after police released him; the chase caused a collision damaging a car and a mailbox; no physical injuries resulted.
Drought admitted involvement, denied intent to injure, and said he intended to confront Luyando verbally; he was initially charged with felonious assault.
While charges were pending, Drought missed a pretrial, his bond was revoked, and a warrant issued; defense said the miss was a misunderstanding.
Drought pleaded guilty to attempted felonious assault (third-degree felony) and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Drought appealed, arguing the trial court failed to consider statutory sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, making the sentence contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 18-month sentence is contrary to law because the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12	State: Sentence is within statutory range and record shows the court considered required factors	Drought: Court failed to consider mitigating factors (taking responsibility, no juvenile record, never imprisoned, victim provoked)	Court affirmed: record supports sentence; trial court stated it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and relied on misconduct, bond revocation, and need for deterrence; defendant did not rebut presumption of consideration

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences and requirement to show record does not support sentence)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (trial court need not state on the record its consideration of statutory sentencing factors)
State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 1988) (silent record raises presumption that court considered R.C. 2929.12)
State v. Cyrus, 63 Ohio St.3d 164 (Ohio 1992) (defendant bears burden to rebut presumption that sentencing factors were considered)