State v. Bridges
2017 Ohio 8579
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Brandon Bridges pled guilty (per plea agreement) to amended robbery (third-degree), abduction (third-degree), and having a weapon while under disability; an aggravated robbery count was nolled. Presentence report prepared and PSI considered.
- Plea agreement provided that Counts 2 (robbery) and 3 (abduction) would merge and the state would elect sentencing on Count 2; parties agreed Count 5 (weapons under disability) would not merge.
- At sentencing the court imposed an aggregate five-year prison term: 4 years on Count 2 (including a one-year firearm specification to be served prior to and consecutive to 36 months on robbery) and 12 months on Count 5, all consecutive; three years postrelease control.
- The court found consecutive sentences necessary to protect the public and to punish, not disproportionate, and relied on Bridges’ commission of the offenses while on postrelease control and probation and his criminal history.
- Bridges appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings unsupported) and (2) the court erred by failing to merge the weapons-under-disability count with the robbery/abduction counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: trial court made required findings and record supports them (public protection, punishment, not disproportionate; statutory predicate satisfied) | Bridges: record does not support findings; not necessary to protect public; sentences disproportionate; not worst form; he wasn’t the gunman; he accepted responsibility; offenses were a single course of conduct | Affirmed — court made and journalized required findings; under deferential R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard record supports findings and they are not clearly and convincingly unsound |
| Whether the having-weapon-while-under-disability count must merge with robbery/abduction under allied-offenses doctrine | State: parties agreed Count 5 would not merge; alternatively, weapons count has separate import/animus from robbery | Bridges: offenses are allied; weapons count should merge with robbery/abduction for sentencing | Affirmed — defendant waived allied-offense challenge by plea agreement; even reviewed for plain error, weapons-under-disability has distinct import/animus (possession occurred prior to robbery), so no merger |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must state statutory findings for consecutive sentences at sentencing and in the journal entry)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (analysis of allied offenses and R.C. 2941.25 tests)
- State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (2015) (forfeiture of allied-offense claim and plain-error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))