general guidance factors in Ohio

2012State v. Polick (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 428, 431 ; State v. Gant, Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 252, 2006–Ohio–1469, at ¶ 60 (nothing in R.C. 2929.12 or the decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court imposes any duty on the trial court to set forth its findings), citing State v. Cyrus (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 164, 166 ; State v. Hughes, Wood App. No. WD–05–024, 2005–Ohio–6405, at ¶ 10 (trial court was not required to address each R.C. 2929.12 factor individually and make a finding as to whether it was applicable in this case), State v. Woods, 5th Dist.

2012State v. Polick (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 428, 431 , 655 N.E.2d 820 , (4th Dist.); State v. Gant, Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 252, 2006-Ohio- 1469, 2006 WL 771790 , ¶ 60 (nothing in R.C. 2929.12 or the decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court imposes any duty on the trial court to set forth its findings), citing State v. Cyrus (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 164, 166 , 586 N.E.2d 94 ; State v. Hughes, Wood App. No. WD-05-024, 2005-Ohio-6405 , 2005 WL 3254527 , ¶ 10 (trial court was not required to address each R.C. 2929.12 factor individually and make a finding as to whether it was applicable in this case). {20} W

2012Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 42 ; Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 ¶ 13 ; State v. Davis, 189 Ohio App.3d 374 , 2010-Ohio-3782 , 938 N.E.2d 1043, ¶ 33 .

2012Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 42 ; Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 ¶ 13 ; State v. Davis, 189 Ohio App.3d 374 , 2010-Ohio-3782 , 938 N.E.2d 1043, ¶ 33 .

2012Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 42 ; Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 ¶ 13 ; State v. Davis, 189 Ohio App.3d 374 , 2010-Ohio-3782 , 938 N.E.2d 1043, ¶ 33 .

2012Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 42 ; Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 ¶ 13 ; State v. Davis, 189 Ohio App.3d 374 , 2010-Ohio-3782 , 938 N.E.2d 1043, ¶ 33 .

2009State v. Dismukes , Cuyahoga App. No. 89169, 2007-Ohio-5847 . {¶ 45} The evidence clearly shows that the court's actions were proper.

2008State v. Dismukes , Cuyahoga App. No. 89169, 2007-Ohio-5847 . {¶ 10} The sentencing journal entry clearly shows that the court considered all of the purposes of felony sentencing because the entry states "all required factors of the law" were considered.

2020State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 23. {¶ 19} As stated above, courts must consider the general guidance factors outlined in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; Sims, supra at ¶ 12 ; Davis, at ¶ 33.

2020State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 23. {¶ 19} As stated above, courts must consider the general guidance factors outlined in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; Sims, supra at ¶ 12 ; Davis, at ¶ 33.

2020State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 23. {¶ 19} As stated above, courts must consider the general guidance factors outlined in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; Sims, supra at ¶ 12 ; Davis, at ¶ 33.

2014They would no doubt consider a lengthy incarceration worth the cost of housing those offenders.” Id. * * * A sentencing court satisfies its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when it considers the general guidance factors set forth in those sections.

2013Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the trial court’s Judgment Entry of Sentence states (1) that the court considered “the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. §2929.11” and (2) “the seriousness and recidivism factors relevant to the offense and offender pursuant to R.C. §2929.12.” [Judgment Entry of Sentence at 1.] This, however, does not end our inquiry on whether the sentence was contrary to law where the sentencing court imposes consecutive sentences, as in the case sub judice. {¶ 55} As recently discussed by this court, in State v. Marino, supra at ¶ 10-11: R.C. 2929.41(A), the

2012An abuse of discretion is “more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶14} Additionally, although mandatory judicial fact-finding has been eliminated, trial courts must still consider the general guidance factors of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

2012An abuse of discretion is “more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶14} Additionally, although mandatory judicial fact-finding has been eliminated, trial courts must still consider the general guidance factors of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

2008State v. Goggans , Delaware App. No. 07-0051, 2007-Ohio-1433 . {¶ 30} This court reviews a felony sentence de novo.

2007No. 4-06-24, 2007-Ohio-767 (noting "the clear and convincing evidence standard of review set forth under R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) remains viable with respect to those cases appealed under the applicable provisions of R.C. 2953.08 (A), (B), and (C)").

2007See State v. Diaz , Lorain App. No. 05CA008795, 2006-Ohio-3282 . {¶ 21} Originally, the trial court's July 6, 2004 Judgment Entry memorializing the sentence imposed at the June 29, 2004 sentencing hearing, stated: {¶ 22} "It was further ORDERED that a violation of this Sentence may lead to a longer or more restrictive Sanction or Sanctions, up to and including a prison term of Twelve (12) months." {¶ 23} Then, via Judgment Entry of December 27, 2005, the trial court reinstated Appellant's community control sanction following a December 19, 2006 hearing on his violation: {¶ 24} "And, pursuant t

2007We disagree. {¶ 22} In support of his arguments, appellant cites this court's opinion in State v. Firouzmandi , Licking App. No. 2006-CA-41, 2006-Ohio-5823 , wherein this court held post- Foster [State v. , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 ], "trial courts are still required to consider the general guidance factors in their sentencing decisions" and "this Court reviews the imposition of consecutive sentences under an abuse of discretion standard." Id. at ¶ 29 and 40. {¶ 23} Appellant argues his sentence "is shocking to the conscience" in that the trial court went from the minimum sentence, community control,

2007State v. Goggans , Delaware App. No. 07-0051, 2007-Ohio-433 . {¶ 10} This court reviews a felony sentence de novo.

2007Having thus considered the general guidance factors required by statute, the court's sentence is not "contrary to law." State v. Peck (Nov. 19, 2004), Champaign App. No. 2003-CA-30, 2004-Ohio-6231 . {¶ 13} Defendant has an extensive history of previous convictions, including convictions for aggravated menacing and menacing by stalking.

2006Bd . (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621 . {¶ 12} In the wake of Foster , trial courts are still required to consider the general guidance factors contained in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 in their sentencing decisions.