State v. Glowka, 2013 Ohio 3080

Appellant Glowka pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a fifth-degree felony, with other charges merged.
He was sentenced in the Butler County Common Pleas Court to 12 months and received 14 days credit.
Prior to sentencing, Glowka moved for a continuance citing federal charges, need for jail-time credit research, and potential mitigation evidence, which the court denied.
The appellate court reviewed the continuance denial under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
The court also analyzed whether the 12-month term for a fifth-degree felony complied with HB 86 and related sentencing standards, given Glowka’s prior felony history.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the continuance denial an abuse of discretion?	Glowka argues denial violated due process and counsel effectiveness.	Glowka contends the four-week delay was prejudicial and needed for mitigation and jail-credit research.	No abuse of discretion; lack of demonstrated prejudice.
Was the maximum sentence for a fifth-degree felony appropriate?	HB 86 favors community control, making maximum prison term improper here.	HB 86 allows prison term given prior felony and non-violence status; maximum term permissible.	Not clearly or convincingly contrary to law; within discretion to impose maximum within range.

State v. Bullock, 2006-Ohio-598 (12th Dist. 2006) (discretionary standard for continuance; abuse requires unreasonable, arbitrary conduct)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (continuance standard; abuse of discretion requires more than error of judgment)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-step review of felony sentences; first for lawfulness, then for abuse of discretion)
State v. Rose, 2012-Ohio-5607 (12th Dist. 2012) (post-H.B. 86 sentencing framework and discretion under 2929.11-12)
State v. Putnam, 2012-Ohio-4891 (11th Dist. 2012) (no mandatory factual findings required after HB 86)
State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2006) (structural sentencing guidelines and discretion considerations)
State v. Snyder, 2012-Ohio-3069 (3rd Dist. 2012) (application of HB 86 to fifth-degree felonies)
State v. Grundy, 2012-Ohio-3133 (12th Dist. 2012) (trial court speaks through its journal entry on sentencing purposes)
State v. King, 2011-Ohio-2916 (8th Dist. 2011) (federal-state sovereignty considerations in sentencing)
State v. McKinney, 1992 (2d Dist. 1992) (sentencing considerations for concurrent vs consecutive terms)