State v. Jones, 2022 Ohio 3349

Josiah Jones was indicted on multiple counts arising from sexual contact with his minor sister; he pleaded guilty by bill of information to two counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI), R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) (third-degree felonies).
In exchange for the pleas, the State dismissed the remaining counts; a PSI and a psychological evaluation were prepared prior to sentencing.
At sentencing the court imposed concurrent prison terms of 60 months on each GSI count (aggregate 60 months) and designated Jones a Tier II sex offender.
Jones appealed, arguing the trial court erred by failing to make an explicit finding whether he rebutted the statutory presumption of incarceration applicable to GSI (R.C. 2907.05(C)(2)).
The trial court stated it had reviewed the PSI, a letter from Jones, and a psychologist’s report, and that it considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors before imposing prison terms within the statutory range.
The appellate court evaluated whether the absence of an explicit rebuttal finding required vacation/modification of the sentence in light of Ohio Supreme Court precedent limiting appellate review of felony sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jones)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to make an explicit finding that Jones did or did not rebut the presumption of incarceration under R.C. 2907.05(C)(2).	R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) (requiring specific findings when the court does not impose prison) does not apply where the court follows the presumption and imposes prison; no mandated explicit finding was required.	The court should have made an explicit finding on rebuttal; its failure was error and cited cases where courts addressed rebuttal when raised.	No error: court properly imposed prison within statutory range and considered sentencing factors; explicit rebuttal finding not required when court follows presumption.
Whether the absence of an explicit rebuttal finding denied Jones meaningful appellate review and warrants modification of the sentence.	Under State v. Jones (Ohio Sup. Ct.), appellate relief is limited; an appellate court cannot reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 considerations and may only reverse if sentence is contrary to law. The sentence was within statutory range and not contrary to law.	The missing finding prevents meaningful appellate review and requires remand/resentencing.	Rejected: because the sentence was within statutory range and the trial court stated it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, there is no basis to modify; judgment affirmed.

[State v. Jones, citation="163 Ohio St.3d 242, 169 N.E.3d 649"] (Ohio 2020) (limits appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08; appellate courts may not reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 merits)
[State v. Scovil, citation="127 Ohio App.3d 505, 713 N.E.2d 452"] (8th Dist. 1998) (discusses requirement to make findings under R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) when court does not impose prison)
[State v. Brown, citation="99 N.E.3d 1135"] (discussing when a sentence is contrary to law if it falls outside statutory range or court fails to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)