State v. Steger, 2016 Ohio 7908

Defendant Harry Steger was indicted on seven counts of gross sexual imposition alleging repeated sexual contact with his two stepdaughters (ages 10 and 12) between May 2014 and May 2015.
On January 21, 2016, Steger pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition (third-degree felony) and one count of attempted gross sexual imposition (fourth-degree felony).
The trial court informed Steger that a prison term was presumed for the gross sexual imposition offense and ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).
Defense submitted a sentencing memorandum arguing mitigation (remorse, low risk to reoffend, lack of criminal history, caregiving responsibilities) and proffered a psychologist’s risk assessment; victims and their mother submitted victim-impact statements.
The trial court found the presumption for prison not rebutted and sentenced Steger to 60 months (GSI) and 18 months (attempt), concurrent, imposed five-year postrelease control, and classified him as a Tier II sex offender.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing a prison sentence instead of community control	State: prison appropriate given severity, victim harm, breach of trust, and relationship to victims	Steger: he rebutted the statutory presumption for prison—low risk to reoffend, remorse, minimal harm, mitigation warrants community control	Court: affirmed — presumption not rebutted; trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and record supports prison sentence

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