State v. Ogletree, 2019 Ohio 3999

On July 16, 2018, Ogletree and co-defendants broke into a licensed gun dealer, removed firearms, and fled in a stolen Chevy Sonic; police interrupted the theft.
After a crash, Ogletree carjacked a woman in a Chevy Equinox, assaulted her (bruising), tossed her oxygen canister, and fled, driving through three counties at high speeds while evading police; the chase ended in another crash.
Indicted on seven counts, Ogletree pleaded guilty to attempted grand theft of a firearm (Count 1), one count of failure to comply with police (Count 3), robbery (Count 5), and receiving stolen property (Count 6); other counts were nolled.
Sentenced to consecutive terms: 8 years (Count 1), 36 months (Count 3), 8 years (Count 5), and 18 months (Count 6) — totaling 16 years plus 54 months; restitution and permanent license suspension ordered.
On appeal Ogletree argued the trial court failed to consider his genuine remorse as required by R.C. 2929.12(E)(5), making the maximum, consecutive sentence disproportionate.
The trial court found it had considered statutory sentencing purposes and factors, expressly determined Ogletree was not genuinely remorseful, and made the required findings to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) and (c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court failed to consider Ogletree's remorse under R.C. 2929.12(E)(5)	Court considered all sentencing factors and statements and may reject claimed remorse when unsupported	Ogletree: court neglected to consider his remorse, warranting reduced sentence	Court held it did consider remorse and expressly found Ogletree not genuinely remorseful; no reversible error
Whether maximum and consecutive sentences were contrary to law or disproportionate	Sentences were within statutory ranges and court made required findings for maximum and consecutive terms	Ogletree: maximum and consecutive terms are disproportionate to his conduct and inconsistent with R.C. 2929.11 purposes	Court held sentences supported by record; trial court made statutory findings that consecutive terms were necessary and not disproportionate

Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016-Ohio-1002) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
McGowan, 147 Ohio St.3d 166 (2016-Ohio-2971) (applies the same appellate sentencing-review standard)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000-Ohio-302) (trial court need not use talismanic language to show consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors)