State v. Grace, 2019 Ohio 3812

Jayme L. Grace was indicted on two counts of trafficking in heroin and one count of aggravated possession (three fifth-degree felonies) based on sales in Jan./Feb. 2017 and possession of .21 g of fentanyl.
Grace sought and received Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC); the court stayed proceedings, accepted her guilty plea, and placed her on a 3-year intervention plan that prohibited controlled-substance use and authorized drug testing.
Administrative forms and subsequent notices erroneously referred to “community control/probation,” but the intervention plan functioned as her ILC conditions.
Grace tested positive for multiple drugs in September 2018; she admitted the violations after counsel was appointed.
The trial court revoked ILC, accepted the underlying convictions, and on Oct. 9, 2018 sentenced Grace to three concurrent 12‑month prison terms. She appealed, arguing the court erred by imposing prison rather than community control and by failing to follow sentencing statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Grace)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) created a presumption in favor of community control	Grace argued she met the statutory criteria (first‑time felony offender; most serious offenses are fifth‑degree) and thus was entitled to community control.	State argued the presumption does not apply where the defendant pleads guilty to multiple fourth/fifth‑degree felonies.	Court held the presumption applies only to a single nonviolent fourth/fifth‑degree felony; Grace pled to multiple felonies, so no presumption.
Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12	Grace argued the court did not expressly state it considered sentencing purposes and seriousness/recidivism factors.	State asserted the record presumes proper consideration and the court’s remarks show sentencing goals (incapacitation/deterrence/rehabilitation) were considered.	Court found the presumption unrebutted and that the court’s statements reflect consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.
Whether the court was required to make specific findings before imposing maximum sentences	Grace claimed the court needed statutory findings to impose maximum prison terms.	State relied on Foster/Marcum line of authority: trial courts have discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory range without special findings.	Court held no special findings were required post‑Foster/Marcum; imposing the 12‑month terms was lawful.

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (clarifies appellate review of felony sentences and sentencing discretion post‑Foster)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (framework for reviewing felony sentences and whether sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (invalidated statutory mandatory judicial findings for imposing certain prison terms)
State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 (presumes trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when the record is silent)