State v. Hampton, 2017 Ohio 7067

Defendant Mark S. Hampton pleaded guilty to one count of robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(3), a third-degree felony, after two prior robbery convictions.
Because of the prior convictions, the permissible prison range was 12–60 months; the trial court imposed the maximum five-year term.
Prior to sentencing the court reviewed a psychological report and a presentence investigation (PSI) that showed a significant criminal history and high recidivism risk, including two prior bank robberies.
At sentencing the court heard from counsel and Hampton, and the court explained that Hampton was not amenable to community control and that his robberies were related to alcohol use and posed serious public safety risks.
Hampton filed a delayed appeal arguing the record did not clearly and convincingly support imposition of a maximum sentence and that the trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.12 factors (e.g., drug/alcohol abuse and prior law‑abiding years).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the sentence within the statutory range, the record supported the court’s consideration of sentencing purposes and factors, and the sentence was not contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the maximum 5‑year sentence was supported by the record	State: Sentence is within statutory range and court considered sentencing purposes; thus not contrary to law	Hampton: Maximum term unnecessary; record fails to show consideration of R.C. 2929.12; mitigating factors (drug abuse, prior law‑abiding period) weigh against max term	Affirmed: Record supports imposition of maximum term; court considered required factors; sentence not contrary to law

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences governed by R.C. 2953.08 and standard for vacating/modifying sentence)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 but need not make specific on‑the‑record findings)