State v. Worthen, 2021 Ohio 2788

Worthen, incarcerated for an earlier conviction (assault on a peace officer), was charged with harassment by an inmate (bodily substance) arising from conduct on Sept. 29, 2020.
Indicted Dec. 8, 2020; initially pled not guilty but changed to guilty at a Feb. 12, 2021 Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; court advised her of maximum exposure and consequences of a guilty plea.
The trial court accepted the plea, immediately sentenced Worthen to 12 months in prison (the maximum), to be served concurrently with her existing sentence (case 2020-CR-604), and awarded one day of jail-time credit.
Worthen did not speak at sentencing; defense counsel did not allocute; the court stated it had considered the purposes/principles of sentencing, seriousness and recidivism factors, and a prior presentence investigation report.
Worthen appealed asserting the court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and by not explaining how it weighed mitigating factors (e.g., age, education); the appellate court affirmed.
The appellate decision applied R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) review and relied on State v. Jones to limit relief where a sentence is challenged only as unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion or failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when imposing a 12‑month sentence	State: Court expressly considered purposes/principles, seriousness/recidivism factors, and PSI; sentence within statutory range	Worthen: Court failed to consider all statutory factors, weighed only unfavorable factors, and ignored mitigating facts (age, education)	Affirmed: Court announced it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and PSI; under Jones appellate court will not remand merely because it might disagree that the record supports the sentencing-factor analysis; sentence not contrary to law

State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (2d Dist. 2013) (trial court not required to state findings or reasons when imposing maximum or more‑than‑minimum sentences)
State v. Bowser, 926 N.E.2d 714 (2d Dist. 2010) (sentencing court may consider information beyond narrow conviction facts)
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider statutory sentencing policies)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard governs appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (appellate courts cannot modify a sentence solely because they believe the record does not support R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 findings)
State v. Brown, 99 N.E.3d 1135 (2d Dist. 2017) (a sentence is contrary to law only if outside the statutory range or court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (2d Dist. 2011) (trial court must be guided by R.C. 2929.11 and consider R.C. 2929.12 factors)