State v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 6930
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On April 21–22, 2015, Amos K. Johnson was at a home in Lima where, after suspected theft of his ring and drugs, he refused to let two women leave, threatened one woman and her 4‑year‑old with a gun, forced another into a bathroom, and destroyed a phone.
- The victims escaped, police arrested Johnson at the scene, and officers found a firearm under a mattress and ammunition in Johnson’s jacket.
- A grand jury indicted Johnson on eight counts: three kidnapping counts, aggravated robbery, three felonious‑assault counts, firearm specifications, and having weapons while under disability.
- A jury convicted Johnson on all counts and specifications. At sentencing the court merged certain counts, elected three kidnapping counts for sentencing, and imposed consecutive terms producing a 33‑year aggregate sentence; the court also ordered payment of prosecution costs, court costs, and a $25 court‑appointed‑counsel application fee.
- Johnson appealed, raising (1) failure to merge kidnapping and aggravated robbery, (2) assessment of the $25 appointed‑counsel fee without an ability‑to‑pay finding, (3) failure to notify of community‑service consequence for nonpayment (later withdrawn), and (4) improper costs of prosecution (subpoena cost for the 4‑year‑old).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether kidnapping and aggravated robbery should merge under R.C. 2941.25/Ruff | State: offenses are distinct because they produce separate harms | Johnson: taking/destroying the phone was part of the same restraint and animus — should merge | Court: No merger — separate, identifiable harms (terror/psychological harm from restraint vs. property loss) permit separate convictions |
| Whether the $25 court‑appointed counsel application fee required an ability‑to‑pay finding before assessment | State: R.C. 120.36 governs and permits assessment at sentencing if unpaid; waiver possible but defendant must request it | Johnson: trial court needed to make an ability‑to‑pay finding before imposing the $25 fee | Court: No ability‑to‑pay finding required by statute; fee may be waived if requested — assessment was proper |
| Whether the court failed to properly notify defendant about consequences of nonpayment (community service) | State: N/A — defendant withdrew this argument on appeal | Johnson: contended lack of required notification at sentencing | Court: Issue withdrawn by appellant; not addressed further |
| Whether costs of prosecution (including $33 subpoena fee for the 4‑year‑old) were unauthorized because child was incompetent to testify | State: R.C. 2947.23 authorizes assessment of prosecution costs; child competency is a trial inquiry | Johnson: child under ten cannot be competent per Evid.R. 601(A), so subpoena cost improper | Court: No plain error. Trial court properly assessed costs under R.C. 2947.23; Evid.R. 601(A) requires a Frazier inquiry — child may be competent and subpoena cost was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (sets three‑part test for allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25)
- State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (Ohio 1991) (factors for determining competency of a child witness)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain‑error standard guidance)