State v. Nuby, 2016 Ohio 8157

Timesha Nuby pled no contest to a first‑degree misdemeanor assault (R.C. 2903.13(A)) and was sentenced June 18, 2015 to 3 days jail, 1 year basic probation, $150 fine, and $100 community‑control reimbursement (or community service in lieu).
A probation‑violation notice alleged a subsequent conviction for obstructing official business and unpaid sanctions/community service; Nuby stipulated to probable cause and a final violation hearing was set.
On March 17, 2016 the Youngstown Municipal Court found Nuby violated community control and imposed 177 days incarceration (the maximum for the misdemeanor remaining available).
Nuby appealed, arguing the trial court erred by imposing a maximum misdemeanor sentence without making or recording the statutorily required considerations under R.C. 2929.21–.22.
Nuby did not include the sentencing hearing transcript in the record on appeal; the appellate court therefore presumed the trial court properly considered the statutory factors and the regularity of the proceedings.
The Seventh District affirmed, holding the silent record and absence of affirmative rebuttal evidence means no reversible error where the defendant fails to show the court did not consider the misdemeanor sentencing criteria.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposing the maximum misdemeanor jail term without explicit findings in the entry violated R.C. 2929.21–.22	The State: reviewing court should presume the trial court considered statutory factors; without the sentencing transcript or affirmative showing otherwise, the sentence stands	Nuby: trial court failed to weigh/record the R.C. 2929.22 factors and thus failed to exercise sentencing discretion before imposing the maximum term	Affirmed: Presumption the court considered the factors; omission from the entry is not reversible error absent affirmative rebuttal (defendant bore burden; no transcript provided)

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (holding judicial fact‑finding to increase sentences was unconstitutional under Apprendi and requiring post‑Foster sentencing adjustments)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (when record omits portions of the transcript necessary to resolve assigned errors, appellate court must presume regularity and affirm)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (abuse of discretion standard defined as more than error of judgment—decision must be unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
City of Cincinnati v. Clardy, 57 Ohio App.2d 153 (1978) (discussing requirement that trial court weigh applicable sentencing factors and that failure to do so may amount to failure to exercise discretion)