State v. Vantilburg
2017 Ohio 5711
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Jason E. Vantilburg pled guilty to one count of robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)), a second-degree felony, for an armed, masked takedown and removal of money from a drive‑thru register on July 29, 2014.
- He sought competency/sanity evaluations claiming schizoaffective disorder; the court found him competent to stand trial after evaluations.
- At sentencing the court heard mitigation from a chemical dependency specialist who said Vantilburg had made progress in treatment but felt structured incarceration benefited him.
- The trial court imposed six years’ imprisonment (within the statutory range for a second-degree felony) and gave 446 days credit for time served.
- Vantilburg appealed, arguing the sentence was contrary to law and the court failed to properly apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 sentencing factors.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Vantilburg's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the six-year prison sentence was contrary to law for failing to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 | Trial court made findings on the record, considered purposes/principles of sentencing, and the term is within statutory range | Court failed to properly apply/record consideration of statutory sentencing factors and should have avoided a prison term given mental-health issues | Affirmed: sentence within statutory range; record shows the court considered relevant factors and made findings; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); vacatur/modification only if record lacks statutory findings or sentence is otherwise contrary to law)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (discussed and noted as superseded by Marcum regarding appellate standard)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011) (trial court need not orally discuss every R.C. 2929.12 factor; consideration may be presumed absent record evidence to the contrary)