State v. Buford, 2012 Ohio 1948

Buford was charged in two cases: CR-541097 (weapons under disability and carrying a concealed weapon) and CR-541098 (two felonious assault counts with firearm specifications and disability).
CR-541098 proceeded to a jury; the disability charge was bifurcated and tried to the bench.
On July 21, 2010, Buford allegedly shot at James Scott and Rodell Booze after a dispute at LaToya Buford’s home; a bullet damaged Booze’s car window. LaToya testified Buford fired and that he threatened her if she told anyone.
Buford was convicted in CR-541098 and pleaded guilty in CR-541097; he received a nine-year sentence in CR-541098 to run consecutively to eight months in CR-541097, for a total of nine years and eight months.
Buford appealed raising six assignments of error, including consecutive-sentencing findings, hearsay, sufficiency, manifest weight, and statutory timing; the court sua sponte consolidated and affirmed.
The Court held that the challenged rulings and sentencing were not reversible and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consecutive sentences require findings?	Buford argues HB 86 requires factual findings for consecutive terms.	Buford contends the trial court failed to make required findings.	No error; Kalish framework applied; HB 86 not retroactive to sentencing here.
Admission of refreshing testimony via writing	State argues proper foundation; defense objected to refresh method.	Buford challenges foundation for LaToya refreshing memory with her written statement.	No reversible error; ER 612 and related case law permit refreshing without placing writing before jury.
Sufficiency/manifest weight of felonious assault	Evidence shows Buford knowingly shot at Scott and Booze with a gun.	Buford contends the state failed to prove intent to harm.	Convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight.
Consecutive sentences under 2929.14(C)(4) constitutional standards	State maintains the new guidelines do not apply; Kalish framework governs review.	Buford argues the statute and HB 86 affect consecutive sentences.	Sentence upheld; Kalish analysis applied; no abuse of discretion; new guidelines not applicable retroactively.

State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122 (1967) (pretrial evidentiary standards for refreshable memories)
State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244 (1996) (writing used to refresh memory; jury not shown the writing)
State v. Scott, 31 Ohio St.2d 1 (1972) (refreshing memory with a writing; witnesses testifying from independent knowledge)
State v. Woods, 48 Ohio App.3d 1 (1st Dist. 1988) (evidence and memory-refresh procedures on appeal)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-step framework for reviewing felony sentences)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (unconstitutionality of certain sentencing-factoring requirements)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010) (reaffirmed Kalish framework and non-applicability of certain mandatory findings)
State v. Booth, 133 Ohio App.3d 555 (10th Dist. 1999) (knowingly standard and inference from totality of circumstances)