[Cite as State v. Oehlstrom, 2012-Ohio-4718.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97785

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

RICHARD OEHLSTROM

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-550417 

BEFORE: Cooney, P.J., Keough, J., and E. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 11, 2012 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Timothy R. Sterkel 

1414 South Green Road 

Suite 310 

Cleveland, OH 44121 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Andrew Rogalski 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

9th Floor, Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, P.J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Richard Oehlstrom (“Oehlstrom”), appeals his 

sentence for attempted felonious assault and vandalism. Finding no merit to the appeal, 

we affirm. 

{¶2} In May 2011, Oehlstrom was charged with felonious assault on a peace 

officer, assault on a peace officer, harassment by an inmate, vandalism, and carrying a 

concealed weapon. 

{¶3} In November 2011, Oehlstrom pled guilty to an amended charge of 

attempted felonious assault with a forfeiture specification, harassment, and vandalism. 

The remaining counts were nolled. In December 2011, he was sentenced to 18 months 

in prison for attempted felonious assault and two 12-month terms for harassment and 

vandalism. All three sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 

{¶4} Oehlstrom now appeals, arguing in his sole assignment of error that the trial 

court erred when it sentenced him to 18 months in prison without considering relevant 

factors. He argues that his lack of prior felony convictions and his current physical 

condition (medicated for a psychiatric condition and no longer addicted) should have 

been considered as mitigating factors. 

{¶5} We review felony sentences under the standard set forth in State v. Kalish, 

120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124. First, we examine the sentencing 

court’s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to 
determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. If this first 

prong is satisfied, the trial court’s decision is then reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion 

standard. 

{¶6} In the instant case, we do not find Oehlstrom’s sentence contrary to law. 

His 18-month sentence is within the permissible statutory range for his conviction of 

attempted felonious assault, a felony of the third degree with a 36-month maximum 

sentence. His two 12-month sentences are also within the permissible statutory range 

for harassment and vandalism, felonies of the fifth degree that carry 12-month maximum 

prison sentences. Oehlstrom’s sentences were ordered to run concurrent to each other, 

for an aggregate sentence of 18 months in prison, far below the maximum possible prison 

sentence of 60 months in prison for these three charges. 

{¶7} Having satisfied the first step, we next consider whether the trial court 

abused its discretion. Kalish at ¶4, 19. “An abuse of discretion is ‘“more than an error 

of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable.”’” Id. at ¶ 19, quoting Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 

450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983), quoting State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 

144 (1980). 

{¶8} Oehlstrom argues that his sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion 

because his lack of prior felony convictions should have been a mitigating factor. 

However, after a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion. Both Oehlstrom and his attorney were afforded the opportunity to speak 
in mitigation at the sentencing hearing. The trial court noted the seriousness of the 

officer’s injuries and the extent of his rehabilitation and potential lifelong disability. 

The court also noted Oehlstrom’s very recent disorderly conduct conviction. The court 

referred to the presentence investigation report’s discussion of Oehlstrom’s drug and 

alcohol use, and the apparent lack of remorse noted by the probation officer. 

{¶9} Thus, we find nothing in the record to suggest that the trial court’s decision 

was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Accordingly, Oehlstrom’s sole 

assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶10} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s convictions having 

been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court 

for execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

____________________________________________________ 

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, PRESIDING JUDGE 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR