State v. Mullins
2016 Ohio 5486
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On Dec. 25, Mullins drove south on SR 23 at very high speeds (up to 105 mph); a trooper activated lights/siren and pursued him. Mullins did not stop.
- Mullins continued into Portsmouth, struck another vehicle, injuring two occupants who required medical treatment.
- After the collision Mullins kept driving and stopped only after a tire blew; he surrendered after a >5-mile pursuit.
- Mullins told police he sped for the thrill and kept driving because he "did not want to stop."
- Indictment: one count failure to comply with police order/signal (R.C. 2921.331) — felony 3; two counts vehicular assault (R.C. 2903.08) — felony 4; one count failure to stop after accident (R.C. 4549.02) — felony 5.
- Jury convicted on all counts; trial court imposed maximum sentences on each count to run consecutively (aggregate seven years). Mullins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions must merge under R.C. 2941.25 (allied offenses) | State: offenses are not of similar import or, if allied, were committed with separate animus/separate harms so multiple punishments permitted | Mullins: the same conduct (fleeing) produced all charges and thus they are allied offenses that must be merged | Court: Affirmed—although offenses could be committed by same conduct (allied), they are of dissimilar import (separate animus/harms); no merger |
| Whether two vehicular-assault counts must merge | State: separate victims mean separate harms, permitting separate convictions | Mullins: both arose from same course of conduct and should merge | Court: Affirmed separate convictions—multiple victims = distinct harms |
| Whether maximum sentences were improper because court failed to consider statutory factors | State: trial court expressly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and made required findings for consecutive sentences | Mullins: trial court failed to make/record required findings for maximum and consecutive terms; remand for resentencing required | Court: Affirmed—court expressly stated it considered required statutes; sentencing not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
| Whether consecutive-sentence findings were made as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)/Bonnell | State: trial court made necessary findings at hearing and in entry (necessity, proportionality, offender history), no talismanic words required | Mullins: contends required findings absent/insufficient; raised plain-error claim | Court: Affirmed—trial court’s statements at hearing and in entry satisfy Bonnell; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1959) (double jeopardy/multiple punishments context)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989) (overruling context cited for Pearce)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 535 U.S. 359 (2002) (statutory intent controls multiple punishments)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (test whether multiple crimes can be committed by the same conduct)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (2012) (de novo review for allied-offense determinations)
- State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427 (2013) (burden on defendant to prove entitlement to merger)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (separate animus/identifiable harm test for allied offenses)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make and incorporate consecutive-sentence findings; talismanic words not required)