State v. Rothwell, 2021 Ohio 1700

Defendant Robert Rothwell’s two-year-old son ingested heroin taken from Rothwell’s pocket; Rothwell was indicted for murder, endangering children, and involuntary manslaughter.
Rothwell pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter under a plea agreement that dismissed the other charges and did not promise any particular sentence; both sides could argue at sentencing.
At sentencing the trial court imposed the maximum indefinite term for a first-degree felony: 11 years minimum to 16.5 years maximum, and advised Rothwell of five years post-release control.
The trial court stated on the record that it considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 and discussed factors: offense seriousness (child’s death), defendant was on community control at the time, prior misdemeanor, prior revocation of community control, untreated drug use, and lack of genuine remorse.
Rothwell appealed, arguing the court erred by failing to state specific findings before imposing the maximum sentence.
The Fourth District affirmed, holding the trial court was only required to ‘‘carefully consider’’ R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and that maximum sentences do not require specific findings; the sentence was within the statutory range and post-release control was properly imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court must make specific findings before imposing maximum sentence	State: sentence lawful; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and relevant factors	Rothwell: trial court failed to state findings or reasons before imposing maximum term	Court: No specific findings required; court must ‘‘carefully consider’’ 2929.11/2929.12 and it did so here
Whether record supports that sentencing goals were considered	State: transcript and entry show considerations of seriousness and recidivism factors	Rothwell: contends court did not adequately consider statutory factors	Court: record shows the court considered applicable factors and incorporated them into the judgment entry
Whether maximum sentence exceeded statutory range	State: sentence within statutory indefinite-range for first-degree felony involuntary manslaughter	Rothwell: implicit challenge that sentence was excessive or unsupported	Court: 11–16.5 years is within statutory limits and properly calculated under R.C. 2929.14 and 2929.144
Whether post-release control was properly imposed	State: defendant was advised and entry reflects mandatory PRC	Rothwell: asserts sentence contrary to law if PRC not properly applied	Court: PRC notice was given at sentencing and included in judgment entry; sentence not contrary to law

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1957) (defines "clear and convincing" standard)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1 (2006) (trial court must carefully consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 but need not make specific findings)