State v. Damron
129 Ohio St. 3d 86
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Indictment charged felonious assault, two counts of domestic violence, and rape; Damron pleaded guilty to felonious assault and one domestic-violence count, with nolle prosequi to the other two counts.
- Sentencing hearings proceeded; the state urged non-merger and consecutive sentences, citing lack of identical elements and different animus.
- Damron argued, relying on Harris and Harris-based reasoning, that felonious assault and domestic violence are allied offenses requiring merger.
- The trial court sentenced eight years for felonious assault and five years for domestic violence to be served concurrently, misattributing merger to Harris.
- The Tenth District rejected the need to reach the allied-offenses issue; this Court granted review to address whether erroneous reliance on Harris mandates remand for proper sentencing under Whitfield and Johnson.
- The Court vacates the sentence and remands for resentencing consistent with Whitfield and Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by relying on Harris to require merger of allied offenses | Damron: Harris required merger; concurrent sentence improper | State: Harris dictates potential merger; separate sentences may stand | No, remand required; Harris misapplied and merging must be determined under Whitfield/Johnson |
| Whether the concurrent sentences equate to proper merging under R.C. 2941.25 | Damron argues no merger, thus not properly sentenced | State argues concurrent sentences reflect non-merger or proper waiving of merger | Concurrent sentences do not equal merger; remand for proper sentencing necessary |
| Whether the case should be remanded for resentencing applying Johnson | Remand to apply Johnson syllabus | N/A | Yes, remanded for resentence consistent with Johnson and Whitfield |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 122 Ohio St.3d 373 (2009-Ohio-3323) (allied-offenses framework refined; same-animus, same victim matters)
- State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (1999) (two-step test for allied offenses; abstract elements review)
- State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54 (2008-Ohio-1625) (elements-focused, not exact alignment; allied offenses analysis refined)
- State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (2010-Ohio-2) (reminds sentencing errors can be corrected on appeal; need merging where applicable)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (clarifies application of Whitfield in resentencing)