State v. Moss, 2017 Ohio 1507

David V. Moss pled guilty pursuant to a plea deal to four counts of endangering children and one count of attempted felonious assault (all third-degree felonies); other counts were dismissed. Each count carried a possible 3-year term; exposure = 15 years.
Victims were four adopted/placed children in Moss’s home (including a developmentally delayed adult and two minors); investigators found prolonged confinement, physical abuse with a paddle, buckets used as toilets, boarded windows, deprivation of schooling, and corroborating physical evidence.
At sentencing the court imposed consecutive 2-year terms on each count, for an aggregate 10-year prison sentence.
Moss argued on appeal the trial court failed to properly consider the R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors and therefore his sentence was contrary to law.
The trial court expressly stated on the record that it had considered the R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors and discussed several aggravated factors (multiple victims, entrusted relationship, victims’ age/mental condition, prolonged abuse) and some mitigating/not-likely-to-reoffend factors (no prior record, prior law-abiding life, some remorse).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Moss)	Held
Whether sentence is contrary to law because court failed to consider R.C. 2929.12 factors	The court satisfied its duty by expressly stating it considered the R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors and by discussing relevant factors	The court only discussed aggravating/likely-to-reoffend factors and omitted discussion of less-serious/not-likely-to-reoffend factors, rebutting the presumption the court considered them	Affirmed. The trial court complied with R.C. 2929.12 by stating it considered the factors; absence of discussion of every factor does not show failure to consider and the sentence was not contrary to law

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); reversal only if record clearly and convincingly fails to support findings or sentence is contrary to law)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial courts must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors but those statutes do not require specific judicial fact-finding or particular on-the-record formulaic findings)