State v. Seidowsky, 2015 Ohio 4311

On March 16, 2013, Jeffrey Seidowsky and his girlfriend (J.Y.) argued after Seidowsky assaulted their puppy; the dispute escalated and Seidowsky struck J.Y., kicked and pulled her legs, and threatened to kill her if she reported the incident.
J.Y. left and reported the incident to police; on March 18, 2013 Seidowsky was charged in Medina Municipal Court with two counts of domestic violence.
Seidowsky initially pled not guilty; he later entered a no-contest plea to one count of domestic-violence assault (R.C. 2919.25(A)) pursuant to a plea agreement; the menacing count (R.C. 2919.25(C)) was dismissed.
The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) and then sentenced Seidowsky to 180 days in jail (with credit for time served).
Seidowsky appealed, raising a single assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum 180-day sentence without considering R.C. 2929.22 sentencing factors.
After two Anders briefs and appointment of new appellate counsel, the Ninth District reviewed the record and affirmed the municipal court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a 180-day misdemeanor jail term without considering R.C. 2929.22 factors	Seidowsky: court failed to consider R.C. 2929.22 factors other than prior record; 6-month term excessive given his acceptance of responsibility and case not the worst domestic violence	State: trial court is presumed to have considered the statutory factors; PSI was prepared and reviewed; facts warranted maximum sentence	No abuse of discretion; record contains no affirmative showing court failed to consider R.C. 2929.22; PSI and violent facts justify 180-day sentence

Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant bears burden to show trial court failed to consider required factors)