State v. Finch, 2014 Ohio 1680

In October 2012, Gabriel Finch placed a cell phone in his home bathroom and recorded his stepdaughter showering; the device was discovered and criminal charges followed.
Finch was charged with illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material (R.C. 2907.323(A)(1), a second-degree felony) and voyeurism; he pled guilty to the nudity-oriented-material count in exchange for dismissal of the voyeurism count.
Defense-ordered competency/sanity evaluations produced mixed opinions: one psychologist found Finch competent and not hallucinating; another diagnosed schizophreniform disorder and reported auditory hallucinations at the time of the offense.
The trial court sentenced Finch to six years in prison (within the statutory 2–8 year range for a second-degree felony).
Finch appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider his mental illness as a mitigating factor and that the record did not support a sentence above the minimum.
The appellate court affirmed, finding the sentence within the statutory range and that the record did not rebut the presumption the court considered required sentencing factors (including mental illness).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was contrary to law	State: Sentence falls within statutory range for a second-degree felony	Finch: Six years is excessive / contrary to law for a first-time offender	Held: Sentence not contrary to law (within 2–8 year statutory range)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in selecting six years	State: Trial court considered sentencing objectives and factors; discretion appropriate	Finch: Court failed to adequately consider mental illness and mitigating factors	Held: No abuse of discretion; record presumes consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors and public-protection concerns justified the term
Whether trial court failed to consider mental illness as mitigating	State: Court’s general sentencing statements and presumption of consideration suffice	Finch: Psychologist’s diagnosis and auditory hallucinations should mitigate sentence	Held: Presumption that court considered mental illness was not rebutted; trial court did not clearly ignore mitigation
Whether record supports upward-from-minimum sentence	State: Aggravating facts—relationship to victim, access, and need to protect public—support sentence	Finch: No extraordinary aggravation; rehabilitative potential and enablers lessen culpability	Held: Aggravating factors and public-safety concerns justify six-year term; arguments insufficient to disturb sentence

State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (establishes the two-step appellate review for felony sentences)
State v. Adams, 525 N.E.2d 1361 (Ohio 1988) (silent record presumes the trial court considered statutory sentencing factors)
State v. Cyrus, 586 N.E.2d 94 (Ohio 1992) (defendant bears burden to rebut presumption that court considered sentencing criteria)