State v. Buchholz
2017 Ohio 857
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Aron Buchholz was indicted for murder related to an August 24, 2015 fatal shooting; murder counts were later nolled as part of a plea deal.
- On April 19, 2016 Buchholz pled guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter with a firearm specification; plea form warned of up to 14 years and $20,000 fine.
- A presentence investigation, ORAS risk report, sentencing memoranda, victim and defendant letters, and oral statements were before the trial court.
- On June 1, 2016 the trial court sentenced Buchholz to ten years’ imprisonment (within the statutory range) plus the mandatory three-year firearm specification term reflected in the total.
- Buchholz appealed, arguing the trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and the mitigating/recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12(C)(4) and (D), rendering the sentence contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Buchholz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is contrary to law for failure to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Trial court complied: it considered sentencing memoranda, PSI, ORAS, letters, statements, and cited R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 | Court failed to consider mitigating factors (substantial grounds to mitigate, lack of criminal record, accidental shooting, remorse) and factors in 2929.12(D) | Affirmed: record shows the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and sentence was within statutory range, so not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (2008) (where court expressly considers R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and sentences within statutory range, sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law)