State v. Trent, 2021 Ohio 3698

Rodney Trent was indicted on multiple felonies after fleeing a traffic stop; during the pursuit he discarded a bag later found to contain 6.49 grams of cocaine; officers recovered a scale with cocaine residue, marijuana, two cell phones, and $2,462.16.
On January 8, 2019 Trent pled no contest to trafficking in cocaine (fourth-degree) and tampering with evidence (third-degree); other counts were dismissed and the cash forfeited.
A presentence investigation was ordered; Trent failed to appear at the scheduled January 30, 2019 sentencing and a capias issued; he was arrested September 9, 2020.
At the October 13, 2020 sentencing the trial court stated it considered R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, and 2929.13, found R.C. 2929.13(B) did not mandate community control, and imposed concurrent prison terms (18 months and 36 months) for an aggregate 36 months.
Trent appealed, arguing the trial court erred by imposing prison rather than community control because its analysis under R.C. 2929.12 and R.C. 2929.13 was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing prison instead of community control because its R.C. 2929.12/2929.13 analysis was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: trial court properly applied R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and permissibly found R.C. 2929.13(B) did not require community control	Trent: trial court’s seriousness/recidivism analysis under R.C. 2929.12 and the R.C. 2929.13 analysis were unsupported by the record, so community control should have been imposed	Affirmed: trial court complied with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and was permitted to impose prison; appellate court cannot vacate based on record-support disagreement per Jones; sentence not contrary to law

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (explains appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for felony sentences)
State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (clarifies appellate courts may not modify/vacate a sentence merely because they find it unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
State v. Brown, 99 N.E.3d 1135 (defines when a sentence is "contrary to law," e.g., outside statutory range or when a court fails to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory range and need not make on-the-record findings to impose maximum or more-than-minimum terms)