State v. Houk, 2021 Ohio 4618

Defendant Stephen T. Houk pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree felony domestic violence based on a March 6, 2021 assault on his partner that produced a 3-cm laceration, two black eyes, and other injuries.
The charge was elevated to a felony because Houk had two prior domestic-violence convictions (2010 and 2017).
At sentencing the victim and her grandmother asked for community control; Houk apologized and cited alcohol problems, but the court found his remorse not genuine.
The court reviewed jail-house calls in which Houk gave menacing instructions to the victim and appeared to influence her statements; the court found him dangerous and not amenable to community control.
Trial court sentenced Houk to the maximum 36 months imprisonment (with 94 days credit); Houk appealed arguing the court improperly emphasized punishment and failed to consider mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Houk's 36‑month sentence is contrary to law because the trial court's R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 findings were unsupported	State: sentence was supported by record and trial court properly considered statutory factors	Houk: court focused on punishment and ignored mitigating factors (remorse, willingness to seek treatment)	Affirmed. Court found the trial court stated it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, the record supports sentencing choices, and appellate reweighing is not permitted under controlling authority

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (sets out R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (clarifies limits on appellate review—appellate court may not reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 findings)
State v. Patrick, 172 N.E.3d 952 (Ohio 2020) (recognizes that failure to observe R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 is not an independent basis for reversal under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 provide nonexclusive guide; sentencing court has broad discretion)
State v. Adams, 525 N.E.2d 1361 (Ohio 1988) (presumption that trial court considered relevant sentencing factors)
Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)