State v. Masters
2016 Ohio 7391
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Todd Masters was indicted on attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault (with 1- and 3-year firearm specifications), and possession of a firearm in a liquor-permit premises.
- Masters pleaded guilty to one count of felonious assault with the one-year firearm specification and to possession of a firearm in a liquor-permit premises.
- The trial court sentenced Masters to three years for felonious assault, consecutive to the mandatory one-year for the firearm specification (total four years).
- For the firearm-in-liquor-premises conviction the court imposed three years of community-control sanctions, with the first six months to be served in a community-based correctional facility (CBCF). The court ordered the prison term and the community-control term to run consecutively.
- Masters appealed, challenging (1) the lack of R.C. 2929.14 consecutive-sentence findings, (2) the imposition of a consecutive split sentence (prison + community control served consecutively), and (3) whether the firearm specification merged with the separate firearm-possession count under allied-offense principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were required for consecutive sentencing | Prosecutor: Consecutive order permissible as entered | Masters: CBCF confinement was effectively a jail/prison term triggering R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings | Court: R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) applies only to consecutive prison terms for multiple offenses; not triggered here — overruled Masters on this point |
| Whether court may order community-control term (with CBCF confinement) consecutive to a prison term on separate offense | Prosecutor: Sentences on separate counts may be ordered consecutive | Masters: Split sentence with community-control consecutive to prison is contrary to law | Court: No statutory authority to make community-control sanctions run consecutively to a prison term; reversed and remanded for resentencing on the possession count |
| Whether firearm specification merges with separate firearm-possession offense under allied-offense rule | Prosecutor: Specification is enforceable separate sentencing matter | Masters: One-year firearm specification is allied to the possession count and should merge | Court: Firearm specifications are sentence enhancements, not separate offenses; R.C. 2941.25 does not apply — merger rejected |
| Remedy | — | — | Affirmed felonious-assault conviction and specification; reversed only the sentence on the possession-in-liquor-premises count and remanded for limited resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barnhouse, 102 Ohio St.3d 221, 808 N.E.2d 874 (Ohio 2004) (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) governs consecutive prison terms for multiple offenses)
- State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398, 945 N.E.2d 498 (Ohio 2011) (firearm specifications are sentence enhancements, not separate offenses; do not merge under allied-offense statute)
- State v. Jacobs, 189 Ohio App.3d 283, 938 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (court may not impose prison consecutive to community-control sanctions for the same offense — cited for split-sentence limits)