State v. Morgan, 2018 Ohio 1834

In March 2016, then-17-year-old Christian Morgan was charged in juvenile court for acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute felonious assault; the juvenile court transferred the case to adult court as not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation.
Morgan was indicted in August 2016 for felonious assault and pleaded guilty to attempted felonious assault (a third-degree felony).
At sentencing the court considered a presentence investigation report, victim impact statement, mitigation from defense, and evidence (photos and medical records) of serious injuries to the victim.
The court sentenced Morgan to three years in prison (the statutory maximum for the offense) and ordered restitution of $7,670.93, an amount to which the parties stipulated.
Morgan filed a delayed appeal raising three assignments of error: (1) restitution imposed without consideration of ability to pay; (2) sentence unsupported by the record and failure to consider mitigating factors; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Morgan)	Held
Whether the trial court imposed restitution without considering present and future ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5)	Court complied by having and effectively considering the presentence investigation report and counsel referenced that report at sentencing	Restitution was imposed without any on-the-record consideration of ability to pay	Affirmed — presence of PSI and counsel’s references permit inference court considered ability to pay; plus defendant stipulated to restitution amount
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to restitution	Counsel’s performance did not prejudice Morgan because court considered ability to pay (via PSI) and Morgan stipulated to restitution	Counsel erred by not objecting, prejudicing Morgan	Affirmed — no Strickland prejudice shown; stipulation and record support restitution order
Whether the three-year maximum prison sentence was unsupported or contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08	Sentence is within statutory range; court found the offense was the worst form and stated it considered required statutory factors and protection of public	Court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors (age, remorse, no prior ODYS), so maximum sentence was excessive	Affirmed — sentence within statutory range; record supports findings and consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors; sentence not contrary to law

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standards for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio 2000) (no need to address both Strickland prongs if one is unresolved)