A man was indicted for grand theft according to § 2913.02(A)(1) and/or (A)(3) of the Ohio Codes. This is a fourth degree felony offense. The man was also charged with another fourth degree felony, telecommunications fraud. He pled guilty to both, but the trial court combined both counts together and sentenced the defendant to 18 months in prison as well as a post-release control term for two years. In part, the court based this sentencing decision on the defendant's conduct that, according to deputies, was problematic. According to reports, the defendant was causing problems while he was being held at the jail. The defendant-appellant appealed his grand theft conviction based on two errors: 1) Trial court's sentencing was contrary to law, and 2) Trial court abused its discretion in imposing this sentence. In this case, the grand theft sentence was within statutory range, and court considered purposes and principles of sentencing as well as the factors of seriousness and recidivism, R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
View State v. Davis, 2013 to learn more.