State v. Vittorio, 2011 Ohio 1657

Appellant Melissa Vittorio appeals a September 24, 2009 Youngstown Municipal Court judgment: guilty of violating a protection order and possession of marijuana, with 30 days in jail plus other sanctions.
On July 31, 2009 Vittorio was charged with first-degree misdemeanor violation of a protection order and first-degree misdemeanor possession of marijuana; she initially pleaded not guilty and was released on bond.
At the August 21, 2009 change of plea, Vittorio pleaded no contest to the protection-order violation and to amended marijuana possession (from a first-degree misdemeanor to a minor misdemeanor) with stipulated findings of guilt.
The State recommended one year community control and restitution for the protection-order charge; no sentencing recommendation for the marijuana charge; defense counsel consented to the stipulations and asked for immediate sentencing.
The court immediately found guilt, ordered a presentence investigation, and set sentencing for a later date; at sentencing (Sept. 24, 2009) the court imposed 30 days in jail, no contact with the victim, 60 days of electronic monitoring, and fines/costs.
Vittorio sought review, arguing lack of explanation of the circumstances under R.C. 2937.07 and the court's failure to consider R.C. 2929.22 factors in sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a required explanation of circumstances under R.C. 2937.07 despite a no contest stipulation	Vittorio argues no explanation of circumstances was required after a stipulation to guilt.	Vittorio concedes the stipulation waived the explanation requirement but argues it violated 2937.07.	No reversible error; stipulation waives 2937.07 requirements.
Whether the sentencing complied with R.C. 2929.22 factors	Vittorio contends the court failed to consider sentencing factors.	Vittorio contends the court considered the PSI and factors; presumes compliance absent contrary record.	Sentence within statutory range and supported by record; not an abuse of discretion.

Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers, 9 Ohio St.3d 148 (1984) (no contest plea requires explanation of circumstances)
State v. Malek, 2002-Ohio-6431 (Ohio 2002) (mandatory 2937.07 requirements; cannot be presumed silent)
State v. Wright, 2007-Ohio-4978 (Ohio 2007) (absent record, cannot presume compliance with 2937.07)
Howell, 2005-Ohio-2927 (Ohio 2005) (waiver of explanation can occur when parties stipulate to guilt)
State v. Crable, 2004-Ohio-6812 (Ohio 2004) (appellate review of misdemeanor sentencing guidelines)
State v. Reynolds, 2009-Ohio-935 (Ohio 2009) (implicit presumption of adherence to 2929.22 under silent record)
City of Youngstown v. Cohen, 2008-Ohio-1191 (Ohio 2008) (consideration of aggravating factors in sentencing)