State v. McIntyre
2012 Ohio 1173
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- McIntyre was convicted by jury of tampering with records, tampering with evidence, obstructing justice, and petty theft, with concurrent four-year terms.
- The Court of Appeals previously affirmed; McIntyre later filed an App.R. 26(B) reopening alleging ineffective appellate assistance.
- The appellate court granted reopening for two assignments of error and reviewed them de novo.
- Assignment I: McIntyre contends his supplemental indictment was not read aloud in open court as Crim.R. 10(A) required, rendering the convictions void.
- Assignment II: McIntyre argues the allied offenses of tampering with records and tampering with evidence were improperly sentenced separately; Johnson governs alignment of allied offenses, requiring remand to apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim.R. 10(A) reading requirement | McIntyre argues lack of open-court reading voids indictments. | McIntyre asserts improper arraignment undermines due process. | Harmless error; no due process violation. |
| Allied offenses sentencing | McIntyre contends merger should apply under R.C. 2941.25. | State did not apply Johnson; remand to assess mergerConduct. | Sentence reversed and remanded to apply Johnson. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (allied offenses: analyze conduct for merger)
- State v. Creel, 2011-Ohio-5893 (9th Dist. No. 25476) (remand for Johnson application)
- State v. Monnette, 2009-Ohio-1653 (3rd Dist. No. 9-08-33) (Crim.R. 52(A) harmless error principle)
- Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (Supreme Court (1914)) (reading indictment not essential if rights preserved)