State v. Fernandez, 2014 Ohio 3651

Fernandez indicted in July 2012 for robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(3)); pleaded no contest and was found guilty.
Court sentenced Fernandez to three years of community control with intensive supervision due to being labeled a high-risk offender.
Court warned that a violation could trigger a five-year prison sentence.
In February 2013, Fernandez failed to report to probation; warrant issued and he was arrested June 2013.
Fernandez admitted two CC violations (absconding; theft in Cuyahoga) in July 2013 and was sentenced to three years in prison.
Fernandez appeals asserting the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a maximum sentence without properly considering R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is contrary to law for failure to apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.	Fernandez argues the court did not consider 2929.11/2929.12.	State contends the court properly considered factors and presumes compliance.	Not contrary to law; presumption of factor consideration sustained; sentence affirmed.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (requiring consideration of sentencing factors; establishing framework for review)
State v. Linde, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26714, 2013-Ohio-3503 () (no explicit on-record findings required if sentence within range)
State v. Steidl, 2011-Ohio-2320 () (presumption of consideration of 2929.11/2929.12 factors)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006-Ohio-855) (holding no mandatory factual findings required for maximum sentence)
State v. Roper, 2013-Ohio-2176 (9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26631 & 26632) (two-step review for sentencing)