State v. Miller, 2017 Ohio 8809

Gina B. Miller operated a psychic-readings business for ~20 years and was paid in cash, cash-advances, jewelry, and watches.
A 2015 investigation following a client complaint produced a 28-count indictment charging a range of offenses; Miller pled guilty to an amended count of aggravated theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(3)), a second-degree felony.
The trial court ordered eight years’ imprisonment, $1.4 million in restitution (stipulated), and forfeiture/distribution of seized items to victims proportionally.
Miller appealed, arguing the court imposed the maximum sentence without properly considering R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 sentencing factors.
The court held a sentencing hearing, reviewed Miller’s background (including her upbringing), the long-running nature of the scheme (≈15 years), victims’ vulnerability, and Miller’s post-indictment remorse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing the maximum (eight-year) prison term without properly considering R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors	State: The record shows the court considered seriousness/recidivism factors and the sentence serves sentencing purposes; findings supported the maximum term	Miller: Court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors (victims sought her out, lack of physical harm, cultural upbringing/provocation, remorse, restitution relative to 15-year span)	Affirmed. Court adequately considered statutory factors on the record; findings supported the maximum sentence and it was not contrary to law

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G) requires clear-and-convincing standard to overturn a sentence as unsupported or contrary to law)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (trial court need not use specific language or make particularized findings on the record to show consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors)