State v. Slack
2012 Ohio 2081
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Slack pled guilty to burglary, a felony of the third degree, following a negotiated plea.
- On August 9, 2011, Dalkert’s leashed dog was stolen; Slack and Hudkins were implicated.
- Slack and Hudkins allegedly forced entry, assaulted Dalkert and his girlfriend, and Slack attacked Dalkert while choking the girlfriend.
- Slack’s acts included repeated strikes, a bite, and kicking the girlfriend while she was on the ground.
- The court sentenced Slack to five years in prison on September 28, 2011; he appeals challenging the sentence and the charging process.
- The trial court record and statutes at issue are reviewed under Kalish and related case law regarding felony sentencing and resource considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the five-year sentence clearly and convincingly contrary to law? | Slack | Slack contends maximum under 2929.14(A)(3). | Sentence not contrary to law. |
| Did the sentence unnecessarily burden state/local resources under 2929.13(A) as amended by HB 86? | Slack | HB 86 reform requires resource considerations. | Assignment not well-taken; amended statute does not require this consideration to overcome imprisonment presumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step Kalish framework for felony sentencing; first lawfulness, then abuse of discretion)
- State v. Firouzmandi, 2006-Ohio-5823 (2006-Ohio-5823) (post-Foster, court must consider 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors; no strict findings required)
- State v. Saur, 2011-Ohio-6662 (2011-Ohio-6662) (amendments deleting 2929.13(A) burden on resources; reassesses compliance)