State v. Grodzik, 2013 Ohio 5364

Brian L. Grodzik (age 55) and Linda Palmisano lived together; both had histories of substance abuse and medical/disability issues. Grodzik takes medication for schizophrenia and has limited education/employment history.
On September 16, 2011, Grodzik lit a sofa tag on fire in an apartment building that lacked smoke alarms/extinguishers; the fire spread, Palmisano (bedridden) died, and other residents were endangered.
A Portage County grand jury indicted Grodzik for one count of reckless homicide (R.C. 2903.041). He pleaded guilty and a PSI was prepared.
The trial court sentenced Grodzik to the maximum three-year prison term for a third-degree felony.
Grodzik appealed, raising two sentencing challenges: (1) that the trial court considered an improper mens rea (suggesting knowing conduct) when the plea was to reckless homicide, and (2) that the court failed to consider mitigating factors, including diminished capacity under R.C. 2929.12(C)(4).
The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court improperly applied a heightened mens rea (knowing) when sentencing for reckless homicide	State: The court properly noted facts; sentencing within statutory range; court was bound by reckless indictment	Grodzik: Court referenced possible "knowing" conduct, improperly inflating sentence beyond reckless mens rea	Court: No reversible error; court explicitly acknowledged indictment limited to reckless conduct and did not base sentence on illegitimate heightened mens rea
Whether the trial court failed to consider statutory mitigating factors (diminished capacity) under R.C. 2929.12	State: Court considered purposes of sentencing, PSI, counsel statements, and seriousness factors; discretion to weigh factors	Grodzik: Court abused discretion by failing to account for diminished capacity and other mitigating factors	Court: No abuse of discretion; presumes statutory factors considered; record shows consideration of seriousness (risk to others); maximum term permissible

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two-step standard for appellate review of felony sentences: review for legality then abuse of discretion)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2006) (trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (no requirement that sentencing judge use specific language or make specific findings to show consideration of R.C. 2929.12)
State v. Holin, 174 Ohio App.3d 1 (11th Dist. 2007) (trial court not obligated to give particular weight to any sentencing factor)