State v. Gore
2016 Ohio 7667
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On May 5, 2015, Anthony K. Gore shot Roderick Davis twice (thigh and head) after an on-site altercation; Gore later surrendered. Prosecutor recited facts supporting voluntary manslaughter with a firearm specification. Murder and kidnapping counts were dismissed as part of plea negotiation.
- On April 27, 2015 Gore entered an Alford plea to voluntary manslaughter with a three-year firearm specification; the trial court found the state had presented sufficient evidence to sustain conviction.
- At plea and sentencing counsel for Gore emphasized provocation, fear for girlfriend/children, prior threats by the victim, and that Gore initially fired a leg shot to stop the attack.
- At sentencing the trial court analyzed R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, rejected that the victim provoked Gore, and found some factors supporting a more serious sentence (including children hearing shots).
- Trial court sentenced Gore to 8 years for voluntary manslaughter plus 3 years for the firearm specification, consecutive; imposed a no-contact stay-away order from the victim’s family.
- On appeal Gore challenged (1) that the sentence violated due process/was contrary to law for misapplying R.C. 2929.12 and ignoring provocation, and (2) that the no-contact order was improper when combined with a prison term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred/misapplied R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and thereby imposed a sentence contrary to law | State: court considered statutory purposes/factors and sentenced within statutory range | Gore: court contradicted its earlier finding sufficient for voluntary manslaughter (which he says implies provocation) and therefore misapplied mitigating/seriousness factors | Affirmed: court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and could rely on "real facts"; no clear-and-convincing showing sentence was contrary to law |
| Whether the trial court was bound to treat provocation as established because it found sufficient evidence for voluntary manslaughter at plea | State: voluntary manslaughter conviction does not require proof of provocation as an element at trial stage | Gore: sufficient-evidence finding for voluntary manslaughter implicitly established provocation | Rejected Gore: provocation is mitigating circumstance, not an element; court was not required to find provocation and could assess sentencing based on perceived real facts |
| Whether the trial court could consider victim-related factors (e.g., children hearing shots) under R.C. 2929.12(B)(9) | State: such factors are relevant and may be considered under R.C. 2929.12(A) as additional pertinent factors | Gore: factor applies only when predicate domestic offenses listed are present | Affirmed: court permissibly took the factor under advisement as an "other relevant factor" for sentencing |
| Whether imposing a no-contact order in addition to a prison term for the same felony was legal | State: (conceded) trial court erred in imposing both | Gore: challenged no-contact order as invalid under Anderson | Reversed as to this point: trial court cannot impose a no-contact order together with a prison term for the same felony offense; remand for correction |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (approving guilty plea while maintaining innocence under plea pressure)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences: clear-and-convincing evidence to overturn)
- State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (1992) (voluntary manslaughter as inferior degree of murder; provocation mitigates culpability)
- State v. Rhodes, 63 Ohio St.3d 613 (1992) (when tried for voluntary manslaughter, mitigating circumstances like provocation are presumed in prosecution's election to try reduced charge)
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (2015) (trial court cannot impose both a prison term and a no-contact order for the same felony offense)