State v. Johnston, 2019 Ohio 3127

Eric Johnston pled guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition (third-degree felony) for sexual contact with his 6-year-old step‑granddaughter; other counts were dismissed as part of the plea deal.
The victim disclosed the abuse in December 2017; alleged acts occurred between November and December 2017 while the child and family lived in appellant’s home.
At sentencing, Johnston expressed remorse but primarily spoke of his own losses; the victim’s father described the child’s need for therapy and family harm.
The trial court imposed the maximum statutory term of 60 months imprisonment, citing the offender‑victim relationship, the victim’s age, the offender’s alcohol‑related criminal history, prior failure on post‑release control/probation, and lack of satisfactory rehabilitation.
Johnston appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by imposing a maximum sentence without properly weighing R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors and that remorse should have weighed against the maximum term.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the sentence was within the statutory range and supported by the record and statutory sentencing considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence	State: sentence is within statutory range and court considered statutory factors	Johnston: court failed to properly weigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; remorse warranted less than max	Affirmed — no abuse; sentence within range and supported by stated reasons
Whether the trial court had to make specific findings or use particular language to impose maximum	State: no specific formula or magic words required; discretion to impose any lawful sentence	Johnston: court did not sufficiently articulate basis for maximum sentence	Held: specific wording not required; court sufficiently articulated rationale
Whether prior case law (pre‑Foster) limiting maximum to "worst offenders" controls	State: Foster removed the "worst form" limitation; judge has discretion within statutory range	Johnston: maximum should be reserved for worst offenders as historically applied	Held: Foster supersedes that limitation; argument without merit
Whether defendant’s remorse required a lesser sentence	State: remorse appeared self‑focused and insufficient to offset seriousness and recidivism factors	Johnston: showed remorse and therefore deserved a shorter sentence	Held: court reasonably weighed remorse and other aggravating factors and permissibly imposed max

Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences and deference to trial court discretion)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1958) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (invalidated statutory "worst form" requirement and emphasized sentencing discretion)