State v. Watts, 2020 Ohio 5572

Watts was indicted for two separate methamphetamine trafficking offenses (one fourth-degree, one third-degree) arising from two sales; he pleaded guilty to the third-degree count (Count 2) pursuant to a negotiated plea.
As part of the plea, the State dismissed the other trafficking count and two additional pending cases; the written plea noted the nine–thirty-six month statutory range and stated a prison term was presumed necessary.
At bond review and sentencing the court learned Watts tested positive for multiple controlled substances, had multiple misdemeanors, two prior felony breaking-and-entering convictions (with prior prison terms after community-control violations), and other drug charges pending.
Watts filed a sentencing memorandum asking for leniency; at sentencing the court cited R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, balanced seriousness and recidivism factors, and imposed the maximum 36-month term within the statutory range.
On appeal Watts argued the maximum sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law because the court failed properly to apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 (noting, e.g., no victim and prior felonies being old).
The appellate standard cited was R.C. 2953.08(G)(2): reversal only if the record clearly and convincingly shows the trial court’s findings are unsupported or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s imposition of the maximum 36-month sentence was contrary to law	State: The court complied with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, explicitly considered the statutes, and sentenced within the statutory range.	Watts: The court failed to properly apply/consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors; mitigating facts (no victim, old priors) make the maximum term excessive and contrary to law.	Affirmed. The court stated it considered the required statutes, balanced factors, found the presumption for prison not overcome, and the sentence was within the statutory range; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (clarifies clear-and-convincing standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)).
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence).
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when exercising sentencing discretion).
State v. Payne, 873 N.E.2d 306 (Ohio 2007) (a trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors is sufficient to satisfy sentencing statutory obligations).