Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-27-2021
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. ANDREW JOSEPH ISRAEL
Case Number: 14-20-07
Judge: John R. Willamowski
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
UNION COUNTY
Plaintiff's Attorney: Raymond Kelly Hamilton
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Lima, OH - Criminal defense attorney represented Andrew J. Israel with appealing from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County finding him guilty of aggravated burglary.
On October 10, 2019, the Union County Grand Jury indicted Israel on
one count of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), a felony of the
first degree, and one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2),
a felony of the second degree. Doc. 1. Israel subsequently entered into a plea
agreement where he agreed to enter a plea of guilty to the aggravated burglary
charge and the State agreed to dismiss the felonious assault charge. Doc. 22, 24. A
presentence investigation (“PSI”) was completed and submitted to the trial court.
Doc. 27. A sentencing hearing was held on April 15, 2020. Id. At that time the
trial court sentenced Israel to a minimum sentence of six years in prison with a
maximum possible sentence being nine years. Id. As part of its judgment entry, the
trial court indicated which factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 were applicable. Id.
Israel appeals from this judgment and on appeal raises one assignment of error.
[Israel’s] sentence is contrary to law because the trial court failed
to consider and weigh the sentencing factors found in [R.C.
2929.12].
Case No. 14-20-07
-3-
{¶3} In the sole assignment of error, Israel claims that the trial court failed to
consider and weigh the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. A trial court is
required to consider the applicable factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 B-F. A review
of the record in this case shows that the trial court did so. Specifically, the trial court
noted there was a PSI in this case (containing the various factors) and that the trial
court had reviewed it. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court made the following
statements.
The Court further finds in this case that the following factors
apply pursuant to [R.C. 2929.12 (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F)]. No
factors under B. No factors under C. Significant under D that at
the time of committing the offense the offender was under release
or confinement or under sanction imposed pursuant to [R.C.
2929.16, 17, or 18], specifically, under community control. And I
believe that was from Crawford County. That he’s previously
been adjudicated a delinquent child or has a history of criminal
convictions. The latter is what’s applicable in this case. And 3.),
[sic] that he has not been rehabilitated to a satisfactory degree
after being adjudicated a delinquent child, or has not responded
favorably to sanctions previously imposed for criminal
convictions. No showing of remorse in this case. No factors under
E or F. The Court further finds that the defendant * * * has an
ORAS score of 21, risk level of moderate, PSI recommendation of
prison.
Tr. 8-9. The trial court reflected these findings in its judgment entry. Doc. 27.
{¶4} We note that Israel disagrees with the determinations of the trial as to
mitigation, but that is not error. “Voluntary intoxication generally deserves little
weight as a mitigating factor.” State v. Johnson, 112 Ohio St.3d 210, 2006-Ohio6404, ¶ 305, 858 N.E.2d 1144. A trial court must consider the factors, but it is not
Case No. 14-20-07
-4-
required to find that the evidence establishes the mitigating factors. State v. Lott,
51 Ohio St.3d 160, 171, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990). “In fact, the assessment and weight
to be given mitigating evidence are matters for the trial court's determination.” Id.
The trial court clearly considered and weighed the statutory factors set forth in R.C.
2929.12 in this case. Thus, the assignment of error is overruled.
Outcome: Having found no error in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County is affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: