2020 Ohio 393
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Ramarco D. Jarrett was indicted for trafficking in cocaine (Count 1, felony 5), possession of criminal tools (Count 3, felony 5—alleging a 2009 Ford Mustang), and OVI (Count 5, first-degree misdemeanor); other counts were dismissed as part of a plea deal.
- Jarrett pleaded guilty on May 13, 2019; trial court accepted pleas and dismissed Counts 2 and 4 with prejudice.
- The facts supporting the charges included police discovery of approximately 16 small bindles of cocaine for sale and Jarrett’s use/control of the Mustang alleged as a criminal tool for trafficking on January 3, 2019.
- The court imposed 12 months on Count 1 and 12 months on Count 3, ordered those two felonies served consecutively (aggregate 24 months), and 180 days (10 mandatory) on Count 5 to run concurrently; driver’s license suspended 12 months.
- At sentencing the court relied on Jarrett’s extensive drug-related criminal history, multiple prior prison terms, repeated revocations of community control, and a high ORAS score; the court found consecutive sentences necessary under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trafficking and possession of criminal tools merge as allied offenses (double jeopardy) | The State: offenses involve separate conduct — drugs/bindles distinct from the vehicle; separate convictions allowed. | Jarrett: vehicle was the instrumentality used to traffic the same drugs, so offenses are allied; plain error in imposing multiple punishments. | Court: No merger. Conduct underlying each offense was separate; no plain error. |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to non-merger | The State: even if counsel objected, merger would fail because offenses were distinct; outcome unchanged. | Jarrett: counsel was ineffective for not objecting to merger, violating Strickland. | Court: No ineffective assistance — no reasonable probability of a different result. |
| Whether consecutive sentences were lawful under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | The State: consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public given Jarrett’s lengthy record and prior prison terms; consecutive findings supported. | Jarrett: sentences disproportionate (no violence, remorse, steps toward rehab); trial court failed to make required oral finding re (C)(4)(a). | Court: Affirmed consecutive terms — (C)(4)(c) finding supported by record; omission of the (a) finding on the record was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (double jeopardy protection applies to states)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (three-part allied-offenses test: import, separation, animus)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (requirements for consecutive-sentence findings on the record)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider statutory sentencing criteria)