State v. Hilliard, 2015 Ohio 3142

Defendant Rudolph Hilliard killed his girlfriend, Shafon Tucker, on March 22, 2010; he pled guilty to aggravated murder and kidnapping and waived a presentence report.
Indictment charged aggravated murder (R.C. 2903.01(A)) and kidnapping to facilitate a felony (R.C. 2905.01(A)(2)); knife forfeiture specification included.
At sentencing the court imposed 25 years-to-life on aggravated murder and 7 years on kidnapping, to run concurrently, plus mandatory postrelease control and forfeiture of the knife.
Hilliard did not raise an allied-offense objection at trial; he filed a delayed appeal after sentencing raising (1) failure to merge allied offenses (double jeopardy) and (2) that the aggravated-murder sentence was unsupported/contrary to law.
Record contains very limited factual detail about whether or how Tucker was moved or restrained; the bill of particulars and prosecutor’s sentencing description do not specify the conduct underlying the kidnapping count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hilliard)	Held
Whether aggravated murder and kidnapping are allied offenses requiring merger under R.C. 2941.25	Trial court’s sentencing need not be disturbed absent a record-based showing that offenses are allied; prosecution noted court made no allied-offense analysis but sought remand pre-Rogers decision	Offenses are same conduct, single animus against same victim; kidnapping was incidental to the murder and thus should merge	No plain error; defendant forfeited issue by not raising it at trial and failed to show a reasonable probability (given sparse record) that offenses are allied under Ruff/Rogers framework; assignment overruled
Whether sentence for aggravated murder (25 years-to-life) is unsupported or contrary to law under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	Sentence within statutory scheme for aggravated murder; R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) bars evidentiary appellate review of aggravated-murder sentences	Trial court failed to state findings or adequately consider sentencing factors; a lower term should be imposed or remand for resentencing	Court lacks authority under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) to review aggravated-murder sentence on evidentiary basis; record shows trial court considered relevant factors; assignment overruled

Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1997) (Double Jeopardy protects against multiple punishments)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1969) (Incorporation of Double Jeopardy Clause to states)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (When multiple punishments are imposed in same proceeding, Double Jeopardy prevents greater punishment than legislature intended)
Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (U.S. 1985) (Discusses limits of Double Jeopardy in sentencing multiple offenses)
State v. Elmore, 111 Ohio St.3d 515 (Ohio 2006) (aggravated murder and kidnapping previously held not allied in many contexts)
State v. Coley, 93 Ohio St.3d 253 (Ohio 2001) (discusses relationship of kidnapping and homicide offenses)
State v. Keenan, 81 Ohio St.3d 133 (Ohio 1998) (kidnapping and murder analysis)
State v. Jells, 53 Ohio St.3d 22 (Ohio 1990) (prior Ohio authority on allied offenses)
State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (Ohio 2005) (statutory bar on appellate evidentiary review of aggravated-murder sentences)