State v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 9286
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In June 2013, Thomas A. Johnson and a companion fired into two occupied residences on the belief one resident had killed a friend; several people inside were nearly killed. Johnson stipulated to the factual basis.
- Johnson was indicted on multiple counts from the shootings, including two counts of improper discharge into a habitation (R.C. 2923.161) and several felonious-assault counts, plus weapon-related offenses and firearm specifications.
- In August and December 2015, Johnson was arrested in separate incidents for possession and trafficking of heroin; those events produced additional indictments.
- Johnson pled guilty pursuant to a plea deal that dismissed certain specifications and some possession counts; he was sentenced in November 2016 to an aggregate 18 years (including consecutive and concurrent terms across the three cases).
- On appeal, Johnson raised three assignments of error: (1) trial court failed to apply the Ruff merger/allied-offense analysis, (2) trial court failed to make required Bonnell/R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings when imposing consecutive sentences (challenging the consecutive drug sentences), and (3) trial court failed to consider the purposes and factors of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions should merge as allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25 / Ruff | State: Offenses involved separate victims and distinct harms, so they are of dissimilar import and do not merge | Johnson: Trial court failed to perform Ruff's three-part analysis and should have merged multiple counts arising from each shooting and related weapon offenses | Court: Affirmed — offenses involved multiple, separate victims and distinct statutory elements/harms; merger was properly denied |
| Whether trial court made required findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (Bonnell) | State: Trial court’s oral findings at sentencing satisfied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (protect public/punish; not disproportionate; factors present) | Johnson: Trial court failed to make the statutory findings supporting consecutive sentences for the drug convictions | Court: Affirmed — sentencing transcript shows findings invoking protection/punishment, separate events/courses of conduct, and defendant’s criminal conduct history; satisfies R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and Bonnell (no reasons required beyond the findings) |
| Whether trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 purposes/factors | State: The judgment entries expressly state the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors | Johnson: Trial court did not adequately consider the statutory purposes and factors of felony sentencing | Court: Affirmed — the written entries recite consideration of 2929.11/2929.12; that language rebuts claim the court failed to consider the factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (defining "clear and convincing" standard for R.C. 2953.08 appellate review)
- Ruff v. State, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (establishing three-part allied-offense analysis under R.C. 2941.25)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (holding trial court must make statutory findings for consecutive sentences at hearing and incorporate them in the judgment entry)
- Williams v. State, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (allied-offense review is de novo on appeal)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (appellant bears duty to supply transcript; in its absence appellate court may presume regularity but may make exceptions)