[Cite as State v. Hatten , 2019-Ohio-5401.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v. SHETORIA M. HATTEN Appellant C.A. No. 19CA0040-M

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE WADSWORTH MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 18CRB00362
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: December 31, 2019

CARR, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, Shetoria Hatten, appeals the judgment of the Wadswor th Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
I. {¶2} This appeal arises out of an attempted shoplifting at a Walmart . On April 23, 2018, a complaint was filed in the Wadsworth Municipal Court ch arging Hatten with one count of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a misdemeanor of t he first degree. Hatten initially pleaded not guilty to the charge at arraignment. {¶3} Thereafter, Hatten appeared before the trial court and pleaded guilty to an amended count of attemp ted theft, a misdemeanor of the second d egree. The trial court imposed a 90-day jail sentence as we ll as a $250.00 fine. In addition to ordering that Hatten receive credit for 17 days served, the trial cour t further ordered that Hatten ’s sentence in this case was to be served concurrently with her se ntence in a separate case.2
{¶4} Hatten successfully moved for leave to file a delayed appeal. Now before this Court, Hatten raises one assignment of error.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY SENTENCING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO THE MAXIMUM JAIL TERM WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SENTENCING FACTORS UNDER R.C. 2929.22[.] {¶5} In her sole assignment of error, Hatten contends that the trial court failed to consider the factors under R.C. 2929.22 prior to imposing a max imum sentence. Hatten further contends that a maximum sentence was unwarranted under the fact s of this case. This Court disagrees. {¶6} “Generally, misdemeanor sentenc ing is within the sound discreti on of the trial court and will not be disturbed upon review if the sentence is within the limits of the applicable
statute.” State v. Seidowsky , 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0037-M, 2015-Ohio-4311, ¶ 6, quoting
State v. Endress , 9th Dist. Medina No. 08CA0011-M, 2008-Ohio-4498, ¶ 3. An abu se of discretion is more than an error of judgment; it means that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶7} “[I]t is well recognized that a trial court abuses its discreti on when, in imposing a sentence for a misdemeanor, it fa ils to consider the factors se t forth in R.C. 2929.22.” Seidowsky at ¶ 6, quoting Endress at ¶ 3. However, “[a] trial court is presumed to have conside red the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22 ‘ab sent an affirmative showin g to the contrary.’” Seidowsky at ¶ 6, quoting Endress at ¶ 4. “The burden of demonstrating this error falls to the appellant.”
Endress at ¶ 4.3
{¶8} Hatten contends that there is nothing in the record indicating that the trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22. Hatten empha sizes this point with respect to R.C. 2929.22(C), which states that “[a] court may impose the lo ngest jail term authorized under [R.C. 2929.24] only upon offenders who commit the worst forms o f the offense or upon offenders whose conduct and response to prior sanctions for pri or offenses demonstrate that the imposition of the longest jail term is necessary to deter the o ffender from committing a future crime.” {¶9} Hatten’s argument is without mer it. At sentencing, the trial c ourt indicated that it reviewed the presentence investig ation report prior to imposing the 90-day sentence. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the trial court failed to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22. As noted above, we must presume that the trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22 in misdemeanor sentencing. See State v. Powell , 9th Dist. Medina No. 18CA0048- M, 2019-Ohio-2061, ¶ 7. As Hatten has not met her burden of ma king an affirmative demonstration to the c ontrary, she cannot prevail on her argume nt. Id

. {¶10} Hatten further contends that the circumstances of this case did not merit a 90-day jail sentence. Hatten maintains that while the trial court sta ted that it considered the presentence investigation report, it did not s tate on the record what infor mation from the report it considered in imposing sentence. The presen tence investigation report has not been made part of the appellate record in t he instant appeal. “It is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the record on appeal contains all matters necessary to allow this C ourt to resolve the issues on appeal.” State v. Farnsworth , 9th Dist. Medina No. 15CA0038-M, 2016-Ohio-7919, ¶ 16. As the presentence investigation re port is not included in the app ellate record here, we must4 presume regularity in the trial court’s proceedings. See State v. Burden , 9th Dist. Summit No. 28367, 2017-Ohio-4420, ¶ 7. {¶11} Hatten’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III. {¶12} Hatten’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Wadsworth Municipal Court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Wadsworth Municipal Court, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the manda te, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file s tamped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the pa rties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket , pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

DONNA J. CARR FOR THE COURT5
TEODOSIO, P. J. CALLAHAN, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: WESLEY A., JOHNSTON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. THOMAS J. MORRIS, Assistant Di rector of Law, for Appellee.