State v. Loparo, 2021 Ohio 2179

Vincent S. Loparo was indicted for Vehicular Assault and Failure to Stop After an Accident (both fourth-degree felonies) after a nighttime hit-and-run where his car struck a pedestrian.
The victim suffered catastrophic injuries (broken neck, back, ribs, pelvis, teeth) and long-term pain and disability; Loparo left the scene and initially lied to police.
Loparo pleaded guilty to Vehicular Assault; the remaining count was nolled.
At sentencing the court noted the serious physical harm, Loparo’s lack of prior record, belief he was at least somewhat impaired, and conduct suggesting an intent to flee; Loparo apologized and expressed remorse.
The court imposed an 18-month prison term (the statutory maximum for a fourth-degree felony), five-year license suspension, and $45,020.55 restitution; Loparo appealed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors in imposing the maximum sentence	State: The trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and explained its reasons (serious harm, defendant’s conduct, lack of record)	Loparo: Court overemphasized punishment and seriousness, failed to adequately consider mitigating factors (remorse, law‑abiding history)	Court: Record shows the court considered required factors; trial court need only "consider" them and is not required to use magic words; sentence not contrary to law
Whether an appellate court may reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute its judgment	State: Appellate court must review for sentences contrary to law and cannot independently reweigh R.C. 2929.11/.12 factors	Loparo: Implicitly asks appellate court to find the weighing improper and reverse sentence	Court: Citing controlling precedent, appellate courts cannot reweigh sentencing factors under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); because the trial court considered factors and explained its rationale, the sentence is affirmed

State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (a sentencing judge need not use specific language or make specific on-the-record findings to show consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors)