State v. Black
2013 Ohio 4908
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Kimberly N. Black pleaded guilty to: Count 1 (murder of Sharice Swain), Count 2 (aggravated murder of her daughter Kymshia Ruffin), Count 8 (felony child endangering as to Kymshia), and Count 9 (misdemeanor child endangering as to Teraji).
- Incident facts (May 17, 2012): Black, apparently under PCP influence, cut Swain’s throat in Swain’s car; Swain’s car then struck Black and her children, fatally injuring Kymshia and injuring Teraji. The record is unclear when Swain died during the sequence.
- Trial court sentenced Black to an aggregate life term (life sentences with parole-eligibility terms) and imposed a consecutive 3-year term on Count 8.
- On appeal Black argued (1) the aggravated murder and child endangering (as to Kymshia) are allied offenses and should have merged, and (2) the trial court failed to make required findings for consecutive sentences / consider mandatory sentencing factors.
- The appellate court found the record did not contain sufficient factual detail to perform a Johnson allied-offenses analysis for Counts 2 and 8, held the trial court committed plain error by failing to inquire, reversed Counts 2 and 8 sentencing, and remanded for the trial court to determine merger. The consecutive-sentence argument was rendered moot by the remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravated murder (Count 2) and child endangering (Count 8) as to Kymshia are allied offenses requiring merger | State: Black’s continuous drug use and separate reckless exposure of children supported treating the offenses as dissimilar; convictions may stand separately | Black: Both convictions arose from the same conduct toward the same victim (intertwined acts resulting in Kymshia’s death) and therefore must merge | Court: Reversed and remanded — trial court committed plain error by failing to perform an allied-offenses inquiry; record lacks sufficient facts, so remand required for trial-court factfinding |
| Whether the trial court made required findings to impose consecutive sentences (Count 8 consecutive to others) | State: Consecutive sentence was lawful (did not fully develop argument because issue became moot) | Black: Trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences | Court: Moot — remand on allied-offenses issue made the consecutive-sentence challenge unnecessary; overruled as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 942 N.E.2d 1061 (Ohio 2010) (adopts conduct-focused test for allied offenses)
- State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632, 710 N.E.2d 699 (Ohio 1999) (previous abstract-elements merger test, overruled by Johnson)
- State v. Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447, 895 N.E.2d 149 (Ohio 2008) (discusses single-act/single-state-of-mind concept relevant to allied-offenses analysis)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (addresses sentencing-package doctrine and effect on multiple counts against different victims)