State v. Thomas, 2020 Ohio 4096

Victim reported Thomas pointed handguns at her head and stomach during a wellness check and told her she could not leave; officers recovered a matching handgun and Thomas was under disability.
Grand jury indicted Thomas on kidnapping (felony 2) with repeat-violent-offender and firearm specs, abduction (felony 3) with firearm spec, and having weapons while under disability (felony 3).
On the morning of trial Thomas pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement: he pled to Count 2 (abduction, third-degree felony) and the State dismissed Count 1, the firearm specification attached to Count 2, and Count 3.
At sentencing the court imposed the maximum term for a third-degree felony (36 months); the court noted the plea was taken the morning of trial and its displeasure with late plea negotiations but stated it would limit sentencing consideration to the abduction conviction.
Thomas appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence; (2) the court failed to adequately address defense counsel’s objection to jail-email material attached to the presentence investigation report (allegedly invoking R.C. 2951.03(B)(5)).
The trial court relied on Thomas’s criminal history (prior aggravated robbery, burglary, abduction, firearm use), that he was on post-release control, lack of remorse, and victim harm; it stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and the presentence investigation report.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing the maximum (36‑month) term for a third‑degree felony	The sentence is within the statutory range and the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and the PSI; discretion permits a maximum term	The court prejudged sentence based on displeasure with last‑minute plea concessions and failed to properly consider rehabilitation/minimum sanctions	Affirmed. The sentence was within the statutory range, the record shows statutory factors were considered, and the court’s reasons (criminal history, PRC status, lack of remorse, victim harm) support the maximum term
Whether the court erred under R.C. 2951.03(B)(5) by not making findings about alleged inaccuracies in the PSI attachments (jail emails)	The court explicitly stated it would not consider the jail emails when sentencing, which is the functional equivalent of a determination that no finding is necessary	Counsel objected to inclusion of jail emails and argues the court failed to make the specific findings required by R.C. 2951.03(B)(5)	Affirmed. The court declared it would not consider the emails — effectively a R.C. 2951.03(B)(5)(b) determination — and Thomas showed no prejudice

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (establishes standard of appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for felony sentences)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of "clear and convincing" evidence)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when sentencing)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (a statement that the court considered statutory sentencing factors can satisfy the record requirement)
State v. Polick, 101 Ohio App.3d 428 (trial court not required to discuss each statutory criterion on the record)