State v. Robinson, 2013 Ohio 2698

Defendant Michael Robinson pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree felony domestic violence; sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
Charges initially included domestic violence and intimidation; plea limited to domestic violence.
Trial court considered the presentence investigation report, plea hearing information, victim’s letter, and oral statements at sentencing.
Prosecution emphasized Robinson’s extensive criminal history, including a prior domestic-violence conviction against the same victim; victim expressed fear.
Defense argued the court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors and urged alternatives to prison (counsel referenced a study suggesting prison can worsen offenders), but offered no concrete alternative sentence.
The court’s journal entry stated it considered all factors of law and found prison consistent with R.C. 2929.11; defendant appealed claiming the sentence was contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 24-month sentence is contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)	State: Sentence falls within statutory range and record shows court considered relevant factors	Robinson: Trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors before imposing prison	Affirmed — sentence not contrary to law; court considered required factors and journaled its findings

State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (discussing trial court’s obligation to consider statutory sentencing factors)
State v. Garcia, 126 Ohio App.3d 485 (defining clear-and-convincing standard)
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (a court speaks through its journal entries for sentencing findings)