State v. Spottedhorse

2026 Ohio 308

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 2, 2026
• Docket: CA2025-06-062
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Spottedhorse, 2026-Ohio-308.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2025-06-062 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 2/2/2026 ROBERT B. SPOTTEDHORSE, :

Appellant. :

:

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2024-11-1757

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.

Michele Temmel, for appellant.

____________ OPINION

SIEBERT, J.

{¶ 1} Robert B. Spottedhorse appeals the sentence imposed by the Butler County

Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to manslaughter. He asserts the trial court

failed to adequately consider required statutory factors before sentencing him to an Butler CA2025-06-062

indefinite term of eight to 12 years instead of to community control. Upon review, we

conclude Spottedhorse's sentence is supported by the record, and that the sentence is

not otherwise contrary to law.

Background

{¶ 2} In February of 2025, a grand jury indicted Spottedhorse for murder and

multiple counts of felonious assault for the killing of John.1 Spottedhorse admitted his

actions resulted in John's death. According to Spottedhorse, he and several friends—all

riding in the same car—visited the home of another friend who tried to commit suicide the

night before. Spottedhorse and the others intended to remove knives and other

dangerous objects from the suicidal friend's home. While there, Spottedhorse saw John

approach and get inside the still running car that Spottedhorse and his friends rode in.

Believing John intended to steal the vehicle, Spottedhorse threw one of the knives he

collected from the suicidal friend's home. Spottedhorse claimed he intended to throw the

knife at the vehicle's tire to disable the vehicle, but the knife instead hit John in the chest,

killing him.

{¶ 3} After negotiations with the State, Spottedhorse pled guilty to an amended

count of involuntary manslaughter. The State dismissed the felonious assault charges. At

sentencing, Spottedhorse faced a maximum penalty of up to 16.5 years in prison. At

sentencing, Spottedhorse, his counsel, and various family members urged the trial court

to consider placing Spottedhorse on community control. They asserted his actions, while

reckless, were not intended to result in John's death. They also pointed to Spottedhorse's

limited criminal history and large family support. It should be noted that John's father

asserted at the hearing that he did not believe Spottedhorse's story of what happened

1. "John" is a pseudonym adopted for this opinion for the purposes of privacy and readability. See State v. Cansler, 2025-Ohio-2558, ¶ 1, fn. 1 (12th Dist.), Supreme Court of Ohio Writing Manual 115 (3rd Ed. 2024). -2- Butler CA2025-06-062

and that Spottedhorse was "getting off easy" with the manslaughter conviction. John's

father even believed that someone else with Spottedhorse may have killed John, but

Spottedhorse took the fall.

{¶ 4} Before imposing Spottedhorse's sentence, the trial court stated it

considered the applicable Ohio statutes (discussed in more depth below) as well as the

record, charge, Spottedhorse's presentence-investigative report, and the statements

made at the sentencing hearing. The court acknowledged Spottedhorse had a limited

criminal history and obvious family support. However, the court "weigh[ed] that with the

fact that there [was] a loss of life in this case" and that John's family suffered because of

Spottedhorse's actions. The court stated that its sentence was "not a judgment of

[Spottedhorse's] character." The court continued that the sentence was "based on the

facts and circumstances in this case and the other materials that the Court has

referenced." The trial court then concluded that Spottedhorse should not be placed on

community control and imposed an indefinite, 8- to 12-year prison term.

{¶ 5} Spottedhorse now appeals.

Applicable Law and Standard of Review

{¶ 6} Under Ohio law, the "overriding purposes of felony sentencing" requires that

sentences protect the public, punish an offender, and promote the rehabilitation of the

offender. R.C. 2929.11 (the "Overriding Purposes Statute"). That statute also requires

that imposed sentences balance the seriousness of the crime with its impact on a victim

and be consistent with sentences imposed on similar crimes and offenders. Id. at (B).

Ohio courts have discretion on how to balance and comply with these overriding purposes

after considering various factors related to the seriousness of the crime and an offender's

risk of recidivism ("Seriousness and Recidivism Factors"), including the offender's

criminal history, whether the victim suffered injury (or death), and whether "[t]here are

-3- Butler CA2025-06-062

substantial grounds to mitigate the offender's conduct, although the grounds are not

enough to constitute a defense." R.C. 2929.12(E), (B)(2), (C)(4).

{¶ 7} To prevail on an appeal related to improper sentencing under these

statutes, an appellant must present clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is

not supported by the record or is "otherwise contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). A

sentence is not "'clearly and convincingly contrary to law'" when the trial court considers

the Overriding Purposes Statute as well as the Seriousness and Recidivism Factors, but

the trial court is not required to make any specific factual findings on the record. State v.

Murphy, 2025-Ohio-63, ¶ 15-16 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Clinger, 2022 Ohio 3691, ¶

39, citing State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 20. An appellate court does not have the

authority to independently weigh the sentencing factors and substitute its judgment for

that of the trial court's. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42.

Analysis

{¶ 8} Spottedhorse argues on appeal that the trial court did not adequately

consider the Overriding Purposes Statute as well as the Seriousness and Recidivism

Factors. Spottedhorse asserts that (1) his minimal criminal history and good nature—as

testified to by himself, his counsel, and family—show that he is a good person unlikely to

commit future crime and (2) "except for the sad fact that [John] died" the facts of the case

do not merit a prison sentence that would separate him from his family. Ultimately,

Spottedhorse accuses the trial court of considering only the facts of the case to the

exclusion of his good character. We disagree.

{¶ 9} Put simply, the trial court's statement that its sentence was "not a judgment

of [Spottedhorse's] character" merely implied that the sentence would be a heavy one

despite Spottedhorse's limited criminal history and the words of support from his family

members. After all, the court acknowledged that it had to "weigh" such factors "with the

-4- Butler CA2025-06-062

fact there [was] a loss of life in this case" and that John's family suffered because of

Spottedhorse's actions. Essentially, Spottedhorse's arguments ask this court to do the

inverse of what he asserts the trial court did—minimize the fact that someone died after

considering the offender's good character. Ohio precedent expressly forbids the

substitution of our judgment (or Spottedhorse's) for that of the trial court's when weighing

the relevant statutory factors. We therefore conclude that Spottedhorse's sentence is

supported by the record, and that the sentence is not otherwise contrary to law.

{¶ 10} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON , P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.

/s/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Presiding Judge

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge

-5-