State v. Holmes
2014 Ohio 603
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Holmes pleaded guilty to four BMV-related counts arising from January–February 2012 while under suspension and with an active arrest warrant, using his son's SSN to obtain documents.
- Plea agreement: one forgery (R.C. 2913.31(A)(1)), two forgeries (A)(3), and one tampering with records (R.C. 2913.42(A)(1)); remaining counts dismissed.
- Sentencing on March 18, 2013: six-month term on forgery counts to run concurrent with a 24-month term for tampering with records, for a total of 24 months; credit for time served.
- Trial court stated it considered seriousness, recidivism, and purposes/principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11; noted appellant’s lengthy misdemeanor history, lack of employment, and multiple children.
- Appellant appealed arguing the sentence violates R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and that a 24-month tampering sentence is excessive; the appellate court affirmed, applying the standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence complies with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Holmes contends no victims/damages; factors improperly considered. | State asserts the court properly weighed seriousness, recidivism, and mitigating factors within statutory limits. | Not contrary to law; factors considered and sentence within statutory range. |
| Whether the 24-month tampering with records sentence is contrary to law | Sentence is excessive and fails to weigh mitigating factors against victim impact. | Court exercised proper discretion within sentencing framework. | Not contrary to law; supported by record and within statutory authority. |
| Whether the record supports the trial court’s consideration of sentencing factors | Record insufficient to show proper consideration of 2929.11/2929.12 factors. | Record shows review of PSR and arguments; court stated it considered required factors. | Appellant failed to show misapplication; presumption of factor consideration stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kopilchak, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98984, 2013-Ohio-5016 (2013) (review standard for felony-sentence challenges under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Hodges, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99511, 2013-Ohio-5025 (2013) (requires consideration of 2929.11/2929.12 factors and consistency with purposes of sentencing)
- State v. Stevens, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130278, 2013-Ohio-5218 (2013) (presumes trial court considered sentencing factors absent contrary demonstration)