State v. Polverini, 2013 Ohio 865

Polverini was convicted by jury on two drug trafficking counts arising from controlled cocaine purchases by a confidential informant.
He was on community control for a felony theft when the drug offenses occurred, and the theft sentence was resentenced alongside the drug convictions.
Sentences: eleven months on each drug count, with the theft sentence running consecutively for a total of twenty-two months; the drug sentences run concurrent with one another.
Appellant challenges the sentencing as an abuse of discretion and argues the drug convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence due to informant credibility concerns.
Trial evidence included the informant, a chemist, arresting officer, a resident of the residence, and an officer who later had Appellant act as an informant; cocaine was found to be the substance and an audio recording existed.
After arrest, Appellant offered to act as a confidential informant; he conducted a controlled buy but did not cooperate, leading to the prosecutions at issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the sentence an abuse of discretion?	Polverini argues sentencing exceeded appropriate discretion.	Polverini contends factors favored a lighter sentence.	No abuse; sentence within statutory discretion.
Was the verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Polverini asserts informant credibility flaws undermine guilt.	Polverini contends weak evidence; credibility issues negate guilt.	Convictions not against weight; evidence supports guilt.

State v. Gratz, 7th Dist. No. 08MA101, 2009-Ohio-695 (7th Dist. 2009) (framework for reviewing felony sentencing under statutory factors)
State v. Gray, 7th Dist. No. 07MA156, 2008-Ohio-6591 (7th Dist. 2008) (guides abuse-of-discretion review in sentencing)
Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2008) (establishes standards for reviewing sentencing statutes)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2000) (weighting of factors in sentencing discretion)
State v. Jones, 7th Dist. No. 04-MA-76, 2005-Ohio-6937 (7th Dist. 2005) (recognizes trial court may weigh factors as it sees fit)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1997) (establishes standard for manifest weight review)
State v. Eley, 56 Ohio St.2d 169, 383 N.E.2d 132 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1978) (weight of evidence considerations for juries)
Barnhart, 7th Dist. No. 09 JE 15, 2010-Ohio-3282 (7th Dist. 2010) (explains weighting credibility and evidence assessment)