State v. Pishner, 2017 Ohio 8689

Defendant Larry A. Pishner, Jr. pleaded guilty to second-degree felonious assault arising from a July 16, 2016 domestic violence incident in which the victim (his wife) suffered severe injuries; other counts were dismissed.
At sentencing the court heard victim/family impact, neighbor and officer description of a brutal attack witnessed by a three-year-old, and several character witnesses for Pishner.
The trial court sentenced Pishner to the maximum term of eight years imprisonment, imposed a $300 fine, and three years of mandatory post-release control.
Pishner appealed, arguing the court failed to expressly consider R.C. 2929.12 (seriousness and recidivism factors) and therefore the maximum sentence was unsupported and unconstitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The majority affirmed, reasoning the record and the court’s statements show the court considered sentencing purposes and the brutal facts supported the maximum term; a silent record is presumed to reflect consideration of R.C. 2929.12.
A dissent would have remanded for resentencing, finding the record insufficiently shows the court actually considered the R.C. 2929.12 factors and urging greater transparency in sentencing findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with sentencing statutes by considering R.C. 2929.12 factors	State: Court’s recital of sentencing purposes and statement that it was "weighing all the factors" shows it considered statutory factors	Pishner: Court never expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.12; no specific findings of seriousness or likelihood of recidivism	Court: Affirmed — presumption from a silent record and the court’s statements that it considered sentencing purposes is sufficient to show consideration of R.C. 2929.12
Whether the record clearly and convincingly supports imposition of the statutory maximum (8 years)	State: The brutal nature of the assault, likely attempted murder, and trauma to child witness justify maximum sentence	Pishner: Mitigating evidence (no prior record, expressions of remorse, jail program completion) undermines clear-and-convincing support for maximum	Court: Affirmed — the severity and circumstances of the assault clearly and convincingly support the eight-year sentence

State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1 (trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range)
State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295, 525 N.E.2d 1361 (silent record raises presumption that court considered R.C. 2929.12)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (appellate review of felony sentences is deferential; reversal only if record clearly and convincingly does not support sentence)
State v. Holin, 174 Ohio App.3d 1, 2007-Ohio-6255, 880 N.E.2d 515 (trial court not obligated to assign particular weight to sentencing factors)