State v. Steger, 2016 Ohio 7908

Harry D. Steger was indicted on seven counts of gross sexual imposition for repeated sexual contact with his two stepdaughters (ages 10 and 12) between May 2014 and May 2015.
He pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition (third-degree felony) and one count of attempted gross sexual imposition (fourth-degree felony). The court informed him a prison term is presumed for the gross-sexual-imposition conviction.
A presentence investigation was ordered; defense submitted a sentencing memorandum (including a psychologist’s assessment asserting low risk to reoffend) and argued for community control or minimum prison. Victim impact statements and the PSI were considered by the court.
At sentencing the trial court found Steger failed to rebut the statutory presumption for prison, emphasizing repeated conduct, the victims’ ages, psychological harm, abuse of the stepparent relationship, and the victims’ mother’s illness.
The court sentenced Steger to concurrent terms of 60 months (GSI) and 18 months (attempt), imposed five years postrelease control, and classified him as a Tier II sex offender. Steger appealed, arguing the court failed properly to apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and should have imposed community control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Steger)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing a prison sentence instead of community control	The trial court properly applied R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, considered victim statements, PSI, and mitigation, and the presumption for prison was not rebutted	Steger argued the court failed to balance seriousness and recidivism factors, and that clear-and-convincing evidence of low recidivism and mitigating facts rebutted the presumption for prison	Affirmed: court’s findings supported prison; sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (establishes standard of appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for felony sentences)
State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio 2016) (appellate court may modify sentence only if clearly and convincingly contrary to law or unsupported by the record)