State v. Hardrick
2017 Ohio 623
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 1, 2015, Hardrick entered a Fifth Third Bank in Wickliffe with a handgun, demanded money from two tellers, forced them to lie face down, and fled with the cash.
- He turned himself in to Cleveland police, cooperated, confessed, and expressed remorse, citing drug use and job loss.
- Indictment charged two counts of aggravated robbery (with firearm specifications), two counts of kidnapping (with firearm specifications), having weapons while under disability, and carrying a concealed weapon; Hardrick pleaded guilty to the two aggravated robbery counts and their firearm specifications; remaining counts were to be dismissed.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent four-year terms on the two aggravated robbery counts, consecutive three-year terms on each of two firearm specifications, for an aggregate 10-year prison term, plus restitution, costs, and mandatory post-release control.
- Hardrick appealed, arguing (1) the trial court misapplied R.C. 2929.12 seriousness/recidivism factors; (2) the two aggravated robberies should have merged under the allied-offenses doctrine; and (3) the firearm specifications should run concurrently with each other.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hardrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court misapplied R.C. 2929.12 seriousness/recidivism factors | Trial court correctly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, including victims’ psychological harm and defendant’s criminal history | No serious physical injury and defendant showed genuine remorse and cooperation, so mitigating factors should carry more weight | Affirmed — record supports the court’s balancing (no misapplication) |
| Whether the two aggravated robbery counts were allied offenses subject to merger under R.C. 2941.25 | Two distinct victims produced separate harms; offenses are of dissimilar import and do not merge | Only one robbery/one animus — convictions should merge | Affirmed — offenses involved separate victims, so merger not required |
| Whether firearm specifications must run consecutively or may run concurrently | Under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) and appellate interpretation, sentencing court must impose prison terms for the two most serious firearm specs when applicable to multiple enumerated felonies | Because predicate felonies ran concurrently, the firearm specs should also run concurrently | Affirmed — court imposed consecutive firearm specifications as required by statutory framework and precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. Ohio, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (articulates appellate standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (when determining allied-offense merger, the accused’s conduct must be considered)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (sets test for allied offenses: dissimilar import, separate conduct, or separate animus allow multiple convictions)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (2012) (discusses allied-offense and merger analysis)