State v. Vieira, 2022 Ohio 1636

John Michael Vieira was indicted on multiple charges after an incident in which he grabbed the mother of his child, put her in his car during an argument, drove erratically, and she jumped out and was struck by the car door; officers observed signs of intoxication.
Jury convicted Vieira of Abduction (felony 3) and one count of OVI (merged from two counts); acquitted on Kidnapping, Felonious Assault, and Domestic Violence.
Presentence report showed multiple prior OVI convictions; State emphasized victim’s fear, Vieira’s driving while intoxicated, and recidivism in seeking prison terms.
Trial court found the offense was facilitated by the parties’ relationship, that the victim suffered serious psychological harm, labeled the abduction among the worst form, and imposed consecutive maximum terms: 36 months (Abduction) + 36 months (OVI).
On appeal Vieira argued the court failed to properly weigh mitigating factors (remorse, provocation), improperly applied a household-member seriousness factor, and relied on punishment rather than the statutory sentencing purposes.
The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/.12 factors and that appellate reweighing is prohibited under Ohio Supreme Court precedent; it also held consideration of the household relationship as a relevant factor was permissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing the maximum 36-month term for Abduction by failing to properly weigh R.C. 2929.11/.12 factors	State: sentence appropriate given seriousness, victim terror, facilitation by relationship, and defendant’s recidivism	Vieira: court ignored mitigating factors (remorse, provocation) and thus imposed an excessive, punitive sentence	Affirmed. Court credited that sentencing factors were considered; appellate court may not reweigh the factors under State v. Jones and related precedent
Whether it was improper to treat the victim as a family/household member for purposes of increasing seriousness	State: household relationship is a proper, relevant factor supporting a more serious sentence	Vieira: R.C. 2929.12(B)(9) does not list Abduction and therefore the factor was inapplicable	Affirmed. Court held a sentencing judge may consider household relationship as an "other relevant factor" under R.C. 2929.12(B) even when the listed subsection names other offenses

State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) (trial courts have discretion to impose prison terms within statutory range and are not required to make findings or state reasons for maximum sentences)
State v. Wilson, 951 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 2011) (R.C. 2929.11/.12 require consideration of factors, not judicial fact-finding)
State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (appellate courts may not substitute their judgment by reweighing R.C. 2929.11/.12 factors; lack of record support for those considerations does not automatically render a sentence "contrary to law")