# State v. Esparza

> Ohio Supreme Court · October 5, 1988 · 39 Ohio St. 3d 8

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760844

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Esparza
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 5, 1988
- **Citations:** 39 Ohio St. 3d 8; 529 N.E.2d 192; 1988 Ohio LEXIS 313
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Locher
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 101 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760844

## Opinion text

Locher, J.,
concurring. I agree with the bulk of the majority’s analysis and its conclusion that the conviction and sentence should be affirmed. I write separately with regard to appellant’s proposition, of law twelve. That proposition of law alleges that the trial court failed to properly weigh the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors.
However, as the majority opinion observes: “* * * the trial court’s opinion reveals the court carefully considered all the evidence presented in mitigation, including appellant’s age, mental capacity and his chaotic childhood, and found this evidence to be of little mitigating value.”
It is also obvious that the trial court properly weighed the sole statutory aggravating circumstance, the aggravated robbery, against the mitigating factors, and did not weigh the “nature and circumstances” of that offense as separate aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors. Thus, the trial court’s opinion was in accord with this court’s recent pronouncement in State v. Davis (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 361 , 528 N.E. 2d 925 .
Therefore I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760844. Public record. Not legal advice.