State v. Sturgill, 2016 Ohio 3117

Victim: 71‑year‑old Gayle Gurto, using crutches, was violently grabbed inside a Wal‑Mart; thrown six feet, suffered a rotator cuff injury that cannot be surgically repaired and now has lasting physical and psychological impairment.
Defendant: Adam Sturgill, 23 at the time, with long history of drug addiction and juvenile and adult criminal charges; on probation when the offense occurred; admitted he committed the robbery to get money for drugs.
Procedural history: Indicted on aggravated robbery (1st‑degree felony), theft (5th‑degree felony), and felonious assault (2nd‑degree felony); competency evaluation found him competent; pled guilty to aggravated robbery and other counts dismissed.
Sentence: Trial court imposed the maximum term of 11 years imprisonment; defendant appealed claiming the court failed to properly weigh R.C. 2929.12 sentencing factors.
Trial court expressly stated it had balanced seriousness and recidivism factors and explained that more serious factors (serious injury to an elderly victim and defendant’s long criminal history) outweighed mitigating factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to properly consider and balance the R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors so that the 11‑year sentence is contrary to law	Trial court did consider and balance R.C. 2929.12 and properly found aggravating factors outweighed mitigating ones; sentence within statutory range	Court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors (first felony, childhood abuse, drug addiction, remorse, potential for treatment, circumstances unlikely to recur)	Affirmed. Appellate court found the trial court expressly balanced the factors, relied on victim’s permanent injury and defendant’s long record, and the sentence was not contrary to law

None with official reporter citations were relied upon in the opinion (the court cited several unpublished or regional decisions and Ohio appellate docketed opinions).