State v. Caudill
2012 Ohio 2230
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Caudill pled guilty to aggravated assault (4th degree) and domestic violence (1st degree misdemeanor).
- Sentences: 12 months for aggravated assault and 180 days for domestic violence, run concurrently.
- Pre-sentence report indicates both offenses occurred Aug. 5, 2011 after divorce papers were served.
- Record is limited; offenses could have arisen from same conduct and same animus.
- Appeal argues that the trial court should have merged the offenses as allied offenses of similar import; mootness doctrine applies because the domestic violence sentence was served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the offenses allied offenses of similar import under 2941.25? | State argues not merged; blow-by-blow separation supports non-merger. | Caudill argues they are allied and must merge. | No-merger issue moot; court addresses but moot. |
| Is the appeal moot due to the misdemeanor sentence already served? | State contends potential collateral consequences warrant review. | Caudill contends possible remand relief justifies consideration. | Appeal moot regarding the merger question because domestic violence sentence served. |
| What standard applies post Johnson to determine allied offenses? | State relies on conduct-based assessment. | Caudill argues for same-conduct/animus approach. | Johnson governs; conduct-based test adopted, look for single conduct with single animus. |
| Do collateral consequences render the conviction non-moot? | State suggests enhanced offense potential may affect future conduct. | Caudill argues no statutory collateral disability shown. | No collateral disability shown; appeal remains moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (adopts conduct-based approach to allied offenses under 2941.25(A))
- State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632, 1999-Ohio-291 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999) (previous abstract-element test for allied offenses rejected)
- State v. Blankenship, 38 Ohio St.3d 116, 1988-Ohio- (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988) (explains conduct can constitute both offenses; focus on conduct)
- In re S.J.K., 114 Ohio St.3d 23, 2007-Ohio-2621 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007) (collateral disability concept in context of collateral consequences)
- State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d 3, 504 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1987) (rejects collateral disability based on future penalties absent beyond current sentence)