State v. Edwards
2012 Ohio 901
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Edwards was convicted after trial of one count each of receiving stolen property, possession of marijuana, illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and possessing criminal tools, with sentencing including a term of incarceration suspended on community control and multiple court-imposed costs and fees.
- The court noted nine counts/specifications in the indictment; judgments included repayment of attorney fees and prosecution costs.
- Post-trial, Edwards challenged whether the two allied offenses (possession of criminal tools and receiving stolen property) should have been merged for sentencing.
- This district, applying Johnson’s conduct-based approach to allied offenses, remanded for the trial court to determine merger in light of Johnson, since it issued after Edwards’ sentencing.
- The court sustained the merger issue, reversed that portion of the sentence, and remanded for Johnson-based merger determination; other issues were addressed separately.
- On remand, several cost- and fee-related issues were reconsidered, including proper notification under R.C. 2947.23(A) and the assessment of court-appointed attorney fees under R.C. 2941.51(D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Merger of allied offenses for sentencing under Johnson | Edwards argues the two offenses are allied and must merge. | State contends no merger ruling was required at time of sentencing. | Issue sustained; remand for Johnson-based merger determination. |
| Constitutional/Crim.R.29 sufficiency for drug paraphernalia | Edwards asserts insufficient evidence to convict for drug paraphernalia. | State contends evidence supports conviction. | Conviction upheld; evidence sufficient. |
| Manifold weight of the drug paraphernalia conviction | Weight of the evidence supports acquittal. | Weight supports conviction. | Not against the manifest weight; conviction affirmed. |
| Failure to notify about court costs under R.C. 2947.23(A) | Counsel claims improper statutory notification regarding community service, etc. | State maintains proper proceedings without notice. | Remanded for proper imposition/notice under 2947.23(A)(1). |
| Attorney fees under R.C. 2941.51(D) and ability-to-pay | Court failed to determine defendant’s ability to pay fees. | State contends fees were properly imposed. | Remanded for ability-to-pay determination under 2941.51(D) in open court. |
| Mootness of separate ineffective-assistance challenge related to merger | Edwards asserts trial counsel failed to argue merger. | State asserts issue moot after merger ruling. | Moot; no further consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (allied offenses of similar import: conduct-based merger test)
- State v. Cleland, 2011-Ohio-6786 (9th Dist.) (remanded for Johnson-based merger determination)
- State v. Creel, 2011-Ohio-5893 (9th Dist.) (remand for Johnson-based merger evaluation)
- State v. Vitt, 2011-Ohio-1448 (9th Dist.) (remand for Johnson-based merger determination)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review (theoretical))
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist.) (manifold weight review framework)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (weight of the evidence; thirteenth juror)
- State v. Debruce, 2012-Ohio-454 (9th Dist.) (notification error under 2947.23(A) remit for costs)
- State v. Malone, 2010-Ohio-5658 (9th Dist.) (ability-to-pay for court-appointed fees)
- State v. Warner, 2001 WL (9th Dist.) ((mentioned regarding ability-to-pay jurisprudence))