{¶ 26} "A signed consent agreement constitutes prima facie evidence that the consent to an adoption is valid." In re Adoption of Yurick (Dec. 15, 1999), Summit App. No. 19520, appeal dismissed, 88 Ohio St.3d 1480; In re Adoption of Brunner (Mar. 11, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1447. A natural parent's change of heart about an adoption is insufficient to revoke a parent's valid consent to the adoption.
State v. Newcomb (Nov. 27, 2001), Logan County App. 8-01-07, dismissed, appeal not allowed by 94 Ohio St.3d 1489; State v. Merchant (Feb. 19, 1997), Lorain App. No. 96CA006334.State v. Nields (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 22; State v. White (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 433, 441; State v. Kinley (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 491; Newcomb, supra; State v. Bruno (Feb. 8, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. CR-375467A; State v. Michael (Dec. 15, 1999), Seneca App. No. 13-99-41; State v. Parker (Dec. 9, 1999), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 75117, 75118, dismissed, appeal not allowed by 88 Ohio St.3d 1480; State v. Sargent (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 557, 568; State v. Blankenship (Dec. 9, 1998), Summit App. No. 18871; State v. Jeffery (Jun. 30, 1997), Franklin App. No. 96APA08-986, dismissed, appeal not allowed by 80 Ohio St.3d 1433; State v. Dancy (Sept. 1, 1995), Greene App. No. 94-CA-24; State v.Morris (Feb. 13, 1989), Butler App. No. CA88-06-08; State v. Brown (February 8, 1983), Montgomery App. No. 7710. Newcomb, supra; State v. Prade (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 676, 685.
In his assignment of error, appellant asserts the trial court failed to make the requisite findings prior to imposing the maximum term of incarceration for the offense. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled on the basis of the supreme court's reasoning as expressed in State v. Arnett (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 208 at 214-215, and this court's decisions as set forth in State v. Trembly (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 134; State v. Ayala (Dec. 16, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75207, unreported (discretionary appeal not allowed [2000], 88 Ohio St.3d 1480); and State v. Cruz (Jan. 27, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 75723, unreported. In State v. Arnett, supra, even though the use of the word unless in the sentencing portion of the rape statute pursuant to which the defendant was convicted indicated the trial court need not have considered the seriousness and recidivism factors prior to imposing sentence, the trial court's comments displayed both its proper consideration of a relevant societal interest and its discretionary decision to assign a heavier weight to that interest.
Chief Justice Moyer, who sat on the sentencing commission, dissented from the denial of review in both cases in which review was sought. State v. Ayala (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 1480 and State v. Cruz (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 1513. This court, however, has held both before and after Lewis that trial courts imposing sentences in drug cases must make findings under R.C. 2929.14.