State v. Thompson, 2019 Ohio 4505

May 2018: Deon Thompson was indicted on possession of fentanyl, aggravated trafficking, and receiving stolen property; he pled not guilty and negotiated a plea.
June 20, 2018: Thompson pleaded guilty to an amended count of aggravated trafficking in drugs (fourth-degree felony); remaining counts were dismissed.
Factual basis: Thompson and two codefendants transported 110 grams of fentanyl (hidden in the engine compartment) and a Glock .40 handgun from Detroit toward Cleveland; Thompson said he was paid to transport the drugs.
Presentence investigation prepared; at sentencing the trial court noted Thompson’s criminal history and prior community-control violations and imposed the maximum 18-month prison term for the fourth-degree felony.
Thompson appealed, arguing the trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and failed to make findings to support a maximum sentence.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the court had considered the statutory sentencing principles and that no special findings were required to impose a maximum lawful sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thompson)	Held
Whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when imposing sentence	Trial court expressly considered R.C. 2929.11 and balanced R.C. 2929.12 factors; that recital is sufficient	Trial court failed to fully consider all seriousness and recidivism factors; a lesser sanction would meet sentencing purposes	Court held the trial court’s statement that it considered the statutes was sufficient and complied with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12
Whether the trial court was required to make specific findings before imposing a maximum sentence	No special findings are required post-Foster; courts have discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range	The court erred by imposing the maximum without making findings supporting that choice	Court held no special findings were necessary; maximum sentence within statutory range is lawful and not contrary to law

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (defines clear-and-convincing standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial court need only state it considered R.C. 2929.12; no itemized algebraic recitation required)
State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000) (discusses statutory sentencing objectives and consideration of factors)
Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
State v. Brimacombe, 960 N.E.2d 1042 (Ohio App.) (recognizes R.C. 2929.12 as guidance and that stating consideration is sufficient)