State v. Pate, 2021 Ohio 1089

Defendant Demarkes T. Pate pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property (a motor vehicle), a fourth-degree felony, and was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 18 months' imprisonment.
Pate appealed, arguing the record did not clearly and convincingly support a maximum sentence and that the court failed to properly apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.
The trial court reviewed the presentence investigation (PSI) and emphasized Pate’s extensive criminal history, multiple prior convictions across jurisdictions, and numerous active arrest warrants.
The PSI and institutional summary showed frequent infractions, fights, and disrespectful conduct in custody; Pate denied the reports and refused to accept responsibility at sentencing.
The trial judge found Pate not credible, stated she considered the statutory sentencing factors, and imposed 18 months.
The appellate court affirmed, concluding the record supported the sentence and the trial court complied with the applicable sentencing standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 18‑month maximum sentence is unsupported by the record or contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)	State: sentence within statutory range and supported by court’s consideration of sentencing factors	Pate: record fails to support maximum term; sentence unwarranted	Affirmed — record supports the maximum sentence; not contrary to law
Whether the trial court was required to make specific on‑the‑record findings under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	State: courts must consider factors but need not make specific findings	Pate: judge did not consider R.C. 2929.12 factors; provided no explanation	Affirmed — consideration is presumed; specific findings not required
Whether defendant’s personal mitigation (education, employment, CDL progress) made maximum term excessive	State: defendant’s extensive criminal history and lack of remorse outweigh mitigators	Pate: mitigating life circumstances and prospects warrant lesser sanction	Affirmed — mitigators insufficient in light of criminal history, warrants, and lack of remorse
Whether sentence was imposed solely because of the judge’s dislike of defendant’s attitude	State: attitude was one factor among several supporting sentence	Pate: judge punished attitude rather than applying factors	Affirmed — attitude was not sole basis; record shows multiple objective grounds for sentence

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (articulates appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for reviewing felony sentences and interaction with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)