State v. Shelton, 2019 Ohio 1694

Anthony Shelton pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery involving an armed gas station robbery with two others.
The State requested a minimum sentence of at least four years; the trial court sentenced Shelton to five years in prison.
Shelton challenged the sentence on appeal, arguing the court failed to consider the minimum sanctions necessary under R.C. 2929.11(A) and that a four-year term would have allowed earlier eligibility for judicial release.
The presentence investigation (PSI) discussed at sentencing was not included in the appellate record.
The Ninth District reviewed the record under the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to consider the minimum sanctions required by R.C. 2929.11(A) when imposing a five-year sentence	Shelton: court did not adequately consider using the minimum sanction; a four-year term would permit earlier judicial release eligibility and greater flexibility for rehabilitation-based release	State/Trial court: court stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and imposed a sentence within the statutory range; PSI context (not in record) likely supported sentencing choice	Court affirmed: because the PSI was not in the record, appellate court presumed regularity and found no clear-and-convincing evidence the sentence was contrary to law; assignment of error overruled

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standards for appellate review of felony sentences)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (sentencing court has discretion to impose any term within statutory range)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when sentencing)