State v. Rogers, 2014 Ohio 4573

Brianna Rogers was indicted on multiple counts including attempted murder, felonious assault (with firearm specifications), aggravated menacing, improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises.
Rogers pled guilty to amended counts: two felonious assaults, two aggravated menacing, one improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises; other counts were nolled.
The trial court sentenced Rogers to five years in prison.
On appeal Rogers argued the court erred by failing to consider the statutory sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, pointing to the absence of an explicit on-the-record statement of consideration and a comment about her demeanor (staring at the judge) as the basis for the sentence.
The trial court had accepted mitigation arguments, heard victim impact and state’s version of events, and stated it reviewed the presentence investigation report; the court also explained the sentence was based on lack of genuine remorse and the severity of the offense.
The appellate court applied the presumption that the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 unless rebutted, found the record showed adequate consideration, and affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 before imposing sentence	State: The record shows the court considered relevant factors (heard mitigation, victim impact, reviewed PSI) and may rely on presumption of consideration	Rogers: Court did not expressly state it considered the statutes and relied on improper factors (her demeanor) to impose sentence	Court: Affirmed — presumption that statutes were considered applies; record demonstrates consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors and compliance with R.C. 2929.11

State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (discusses appellate review of sentences and consideration of statutory factors)
State v. Adams, 525 N.E.2d 1361 (Ohio 1988) (presumes trial court properly considered statutory sentencing factors absent affirmative showing to the contrary)
State v. Cyrus, 586 N.E.2d 94 (Ohio 1992) (defendant can rebut presumption of consideration by affirmative showing)
State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000) (addresses sufficiency of on-the-record sentencing statements)
State v. Wiley, 905 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio App. 2009) (reversed where trial court’s stated "policy" suggested a predecided outcome and record did not show consideration of statutory factors)