State v. Smith, 2012 Ohio 2558

Charles Smith pleaded no contest to trafficking in drugs, a third-degree felony, in Medina County, Ohio.
The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 24 months in prison.
Smith appeals, arguing the court failed to properly consider sentencing factors and imposed more than minimum because no prior imprisonment and nonmandatory prison term.
The appellate standard follows Kalish for two-step review: legality first, then whether discretion was properly exercised.
The court found Smith had an alarming, lengthy criminal history and high risk of recidivism, justifying a prison term, and noted prior violations while on bail.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did trial court properly consider sentencing factors under 2929.11–2929.12?	Smith argues factors were not adequately weighed.	Smith asserts proper consideration but minimal reasoning was not shown.	Yes; court considered relevant factors and did not err in weighing recidivism.
Was post-release control properly notified at sentencing?	State contends notification was sufficient through court's entry.	Court failed to properly notify on the record at sentencing.	No; notification was deficient; remanded for limited resentencing on post-release control.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (Ohio (2008)) (two-step standard for reviewing felony sentences: legality and discretion)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855 (Ohio (2006)) (court must consider statutes 2929.11–2929.12 in exercising discretion)
State v. Qualls, Ohio St.3d , 2012-Ohio-1111 (Ohio (2012)) (must give statutorily compliant post-release-control notification at sentencing)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238 (Ohio (2010)) (nunc pro tunc corrections do not cure defective post-release-control notice)