State v. Bowman, 2012 Ohio 1355

Bowman was indicted on kidnapping (R.C. 2905.01(A)(3)) and felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)) with prior-conviction and repeat-violent-offender specifications; indictment later named the victim.
He waived a jury and proceeded to a bench trial after rejecting a plea offer.
The victim testified to January 25, 2011, incident at Cleveland bus stops where Bowman, wearing a red hoodie, chased her with a knife and threatened death; she escaped and was identifiable by witnesses.
Police recovered a red hoodie, a baseball cap, and a Swiss Army knife; Bowman admitted presence, intoxication, and possessing a knife; he claimed mental illness and conspiratorial thoughts.
The trial court found Bowman guilty on both counts, held that the offenses merged for sentencing, and elected to sentence on the kidnapping count to five years with five years of postrelease control.
On appeal, Bowman raises four assignments of error challenging weight of the evidence, ineffective assistance, allied-offense merger, and punishment for exercising the right to trial; the court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the kidnapping conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?	State argues sufficient and credible proof supported conviction.	Bowman contends victim’s escape shows lesser offense; weight issue.	Not against weight; evidence supported first-degree kidnapping.
Was there ineffective assistance of counsel regarding eyewitness identification?	State contends no prejudice from counsel’s actions.	Bowman asserts unduly suggestive show-up and suppression issues.	No merit; identification reliable; suppression would not have changed outcome.
Did the trial court properly merge allied offenses and apply the state’s sentencing election?	Whitfield/Johnson/Wilson framework supports merger after state election.	Bowman argues improper or premature merger.	Proper merger; state elected kidnapping sentencing; sentences merged for the merged offense.
Was Bowman punished for exercising his right to trial?	Sentence justified by offense factors and record; not retaliatory.	Punishment allegedly for choosing trial over plea.	No punitive retaliation; five-year sentence appropriate and not retaliatory.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997) (establishes manifest weight standard for review)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (pre-sentencing merger of allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (pre-sentencing determination of allied offenses necessary)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011) (state’s election guides merger before sentencing)
State v. White, 8th Dist. No. 92972, 2010-Ohio-2342 (Eighth District Court of Appeals, 2010) (show-up identification admissibility and reliability considerations)