State v. Hatten, 2019 Ohio 5401

On April 23, 2018, Hatten was charged in Wadsworth Municipal Court with theft under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) (first-degree misdemeanor) arising from an attempted shoplifting at Walmart.
Hatten initially pleaded not guilty but subsequently pleaded guilty to an amended count of attempted theft (misdemeanor of the second degree).
The trial court sentenced Hatten to 90 days in jail, a $250 fine, credited her with 17 days served, and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with a sentence in a separate case.
Hatten obtained leave to file a delayed appeal and challenged the sentence, arguing the trial court failed to consider the misdemeanor sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.22 and improperly imposed the maximum jail term.
The trial court stated it reviewed the presentence investigation report (PSI) at sentencing, but the PSI was not included in the appellate record.
The Ninth District affirmed, concluding Hatten failed to carry her burden to show the trial court did not consider the statutory factors and that regularity is presumed when the record is incomplete.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum misdemeanor jail term without considering R.C. 2929.22 factors	State: The trial court reviewed the PSI and is presumed to have considered R.C. 2929.22; appellant bears burden to show otherwise	Hatten: Record contains no indication the court considered R.C. 2929.22(C) and the circumstances did not warrant the maximum 90‑day term	Affirmed: Court presumed consideration of R.C. 2929.22; appellant made no affirmative showing to rebut the presumption; PSI not in record, so regularity presumed

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)