State v. Tillett, 2020 Ohio 3836

Appellant Paul E. Tillett, Sr. was indicted for rape of a child under 10, two counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI) involving a child under 13, and one count of public indecency based on sexual abuse of his granddaughter between 2009–2011.
Pursuant to a plea agreement Tillett pled guilty to two counts of third‑degree GSI; remaining counts were dismissed. He admitted separate acts of sexual contact (victim touched his penis; he touched victim’s vaginal area).
The trial court ordered a PSI, revoked bond, and at sentencing heard victim impact statements, character letters, and mitigation from defense (age 76, serious health issues, caregiver for wife, no prior record, remorse).
The court found a presumption of prison for R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) offenses, concluded Tillett was not amenable to community control, and imposed concurrent 60‑month prison terms on each GSI count plus five years postrelease control and restitution.
Tillett appealed, arguing the 60‑month sentences were unsupported by the record and inconsistent with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 — he urged community control or a shorter term based on mitigating circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Tillett)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing concurrent 60‑month prison terms for two third‑degree GSI convictions	Trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, found presumption of prison, determined Tillett not amenable to community control, and sentenced within statutory range	Sentence is unsupported by the record and contrary to the purposes/principles of sentencing; mitigating factors (age, health, caregiver duties, remorse, no priors) show low recidivism and favor community control	Affirmed: sentence not contrary to law and supported by the record; court considered required factors and imposed a lawful sentence within the statutory range
Proper scope/standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)	(Majority) Appellate review may modify/vacate only if sentence is contrary to law or the record clearly and convincingly does not support trial court findings	(Concurring view) Appellate review should be confined to whether the sentence is contrary to law per statute and not to a broader "unsupported by the record" inquiry	Majority applied Marcum standard and affirmed on the merits; concurrence emphasized limiting review to whether sentence is contrary to law under the statute

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (articulates appellate review standard for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221 (2016) (discusses appellate authority to modify or vacate felony sentences)
State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (2016) (reiterates that appellate review of sentencing is statutory and limited to actions authorized by R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 (2019) (plurality/concurring discussion about proper scope of appellate review under R.C. 2953.08)