2013 Ohio 3102
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Monty Scott Hare was convicted on two kidnapping counts and additional offenses including domestic violence, theft, receiving stolen property, burglary, aggravated menacing, and abduction.
- He appealed the judgment to the Delaware County Court of Appeals and sought an allied-offense analysis for burglary and kidnapping convictions.
- The trial court previously resentenced Hare after remand for conformity with Foster, imposing a twelve-year term and ordering costs.
- Hare filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied; on appeal, this Court affirmed denial as res judicata.
- Hare also sought a writ of coram vobis to challenge court costs for indigents; the trial court denied and this Court later affirmed
- The issue on appeal centers on whether Johnson’s allied-offense framework should be applied retroactively to a final conviction
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allied-offense analysis should apply here | Hare argues Johnson should apply to combine offenses | State contends no retroactive application due to final judgment | Barred by res judicata; Johnson not retroactive |
| Retroactivity of Johnson to final convictions | Johnson should be applied to safeguard proper sentencing | Johnson is not retroactive to cases already final | Johnson does not apply retroactively to final judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (allied-offense framework not retroactive)
- State v. Holliday, 2012-Ohio-2376 (5th Dist.) (retroactivity considerations in appeal)
- State v. Hickman, 2012-Ohio-2182 (5th Dist.) (retroactivity and res judicata principles)
- State v. Parson, 2012-Ohio-730 (2nd Dist.) (new judicial rulings apply only to cases pending on announcement)
- Ali v. State, 104 Ohio St.3d 328, 2004-Ohio-6592 (Ohio Supreme Court) (final judgments bar new claims under retroactivity principles)