State v. McCoy, 2016 Ohio 7415

Defendant Lannie McCoy (21) was indicted on two child-endangerment counts after a five-month-old in his care suffered a subdural hematoma and a broken tibia; hospital records showed lifelong brain injury/Cerebral Palsy.
McCoy initially denied involvement, then after being interviewed by law enforcement returned and admitted he had dropped the baby; he delayed telling anyone for three days and did not inform medical staff when the child was hospitalized.
McCoy entered an Alford plea to one third-degree felony child endangerment count in exchange for dismissal of a second-degree count.
The trial court ordered a presentence investigation, heard statements, and imposed the maximum authorized sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
McCoy appealed solely arguing the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors (accidental nature, inexperience, remorse, youth, lack of priors, low recidivism risk) and thus abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the maximum three-year sentence is contrary to law	State: sentence within statutory range and trial court considered sentencing statutes	McCoy: court failed to consider mitigating factors and abused discretion by imposing max term	Court: sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; affirmed
Whether the record fails to support the sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)	State: record and entry show consideration of R.C. 2929.11–2929.12; presumption court considered statutes	McCoy: absence of on-the-record discussion of mitigating factors shows lack of consideration	Court: sentencing entry expressly states consideration of statutes; silent record presumption applies; record supports sentence
Whether McCoy’s conduct and delay in disclosure justify a maximum term	State: delay, failure to seek/advise medical care, and severity of injury support sentence	McCoy: injury was accidental; he lacks prior record and is remorseful	Court: conduct (delayed disclosure, initial dishonesty, resulting severe lifelong injuries) supports maximum sentence
Whether an Alford plea affects sentencing consideration	State: plea admits sufficient facts; court may consider conduct and statements	McCoy: his Alford plea reflects belief he did not cause injuries, suggesting mitigation	Held: Alford plea did not preclude consideration of his admitted conduct and surrounding facts; court reasonably weighed responsibility and remorse

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) rather than abuse-of-discretion)
State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759 (Ohio App.) (district court applying Marcum principles to sentence review)
State v. Leopard, 194 Ohio App.3d 500 (2011) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when sentencing)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (appellate review standards for felony sentencing and presumption that trial court considered statutory factors)
State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 (1988) (silent record presumes consideration of R.C. 2929.12)