State v. Parsons, 2011 Ohio 168

In Feb. 2010, an informant told authorities Parsons manufactured methamphetamine at his home in St. Mary’s, with a detectable odor upon opening the door.
Task-force officers observed the home, spoke with occupants, and left after learning Parsons was present and the odor was not detectable at that time.
Days later, arresting officers detected an ammonia odor at Parsons’ home; York consented to a search of her home, and officers noticed ammonia odor stronger in the basement along with drug paraphernalia.
York and her father provided information; officers obtained a search warrant and, during the search, found items consistent with methamphetamine manufacture and a drain off-gassing ammonia; Parsons admitted manufacturing methamphetamine in the home.
Three children, aged four, nine, and ten, were present in the home within 100 feet of the materials during the manufacturing period; Parsons was indicted on three counts and pled guilty to Count I and an endangering-children count, with Counts II and III dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12	Parsons argues the court failed to consider statutory sentencing factors.	Parsons contends the court did not properly apply Michigan? (Note: use Parsons' argument) Actually: Parsons contends failure to consider 2929.11/2929.12 invalidates sentence.	Record shows the court stated it considered 2929.11 and 2929.12 in the judgment entry; sentence upheld.
Whether consecutive, mandatory terms were supported by the record	Prosecution sought consecutive mandatory terms totaling seven years as appropriate.	Parsons argues the terms were unsupported or improperly imposed.	The sentences of four and three years, consecutive for a seven-year aggregate, were within statutory ranges and not clearly contrary to law.
Whether the trial court abused discretion in sentencing	The state contends proper application of statutory factors supports the model sentence.	Parsons claims the court abused its discretion in weighing factors.	No abuse; record supports the sentence under the applicable statutes; substantial risk to children substantiates the punishment.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two-part review for felony sentencing under R.C. 2953.08(G))
State v. Ditto, 2010-Ohio-1503 (3rd Dist. 2010) (record may show consideration of sentencing statutes; necessity of record-compatible finding)
State v. Scott, 2008-Ohio-86 (3rd Dist. 2008) (application of sentencing factors may be based on record; not all factors must be articulated on the record)
State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 1988) (presumption of consideration of sentencing statutes when not explicit on record)
State v. Ramos, 2007-Ohio-767 (3rd Dist. 2007) (clear and convincing standard remains viable for sentencing reviews)
State v. Rhodes, 2006-Ohio-2401 (12th Dist. 2006) (standard of review considerations for sentencing)
State v. Tyson, 2005-Ohio-1082 (3rd Dist. 2005) (framework for reviewing felony sentencing decisions under R.C. 2953.08)