State v. Novoa, 2021 Ohio 3585

Background

In Feb. 2017 Arturo Novoa murdered Shannon Graves, dismembered her, and over several months attempted to destroy/conceal remains and personal effects (burning, acid, repeated relocations and storage in freezers).
Novoa was indicted on numerous counts (including murder, multiple tampering counts, abuse of a corpse, possession of criminal tools, thefts, drug trafficking, and RICO-like pattern charge). Aggravated murder count was dismissed as part of a plea agreement.
On May 19, 2019 Novoa pleaded guilty to 43 counts; sentencing occurred June 24, 2019. The court imposed 15 years-to-life on murder plus multiple consecutive and concurrent terms, stating an aggregate term of 48 years-to-life.
The trial court announced various mergers among counts but nevertheless imposed sentences on the merged counts (some concurrent, some consecutive).
On appeal Novoa challenged (1) the plea’s validity because the court did not state the aggregate maximum sentence, (2) double jeopardy/merger of multiple counts, and (3) the imposition of consecutive sentences.
The appellate court: (a) affirmed the plea and the convictions (finding separate conduct supported most counts), but (b) held the trial court erred by sentencing on counts it had merged and vacated the sentence, remanding for limited resentencing so the state can elect which merged counts to sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea was knowing and voluntary under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) because the court did not state the aggregate maximum sentence	Court substantially complied by informing Novoa of the maximum penalty for each individual count and rights waived; aggregate total not required	Novoa: Rule requires disclosure of aggregate maximum when multiple counts are involved; plea therefore involuntary	Affirmed plea. Following Johnson, the court need only inform defendant of maximum for each count; aggregate total not required here (Bishop inapplicable)
Whether multiple tampering/abuse/possession convictions violated double jeopardy (allied-offenses/merger under R.C. 2941.25)	State: offenses involved distinct acts (different items, locations, times, and methods) and separate animus; multiple convictions permissible	Novoa: Many counts reflected the same single object/event (Graves’ body and effects) and common animus to conceal murder, so counts should merge	Convictions affirmed. Court applied Ruff factors and found separate conduct, separate harms, and separate animus for many counts (tampering, possession, abuse did not merge as defendant urged)
Whether the court lawfully imposed consecutive sentences and sentenced on merged counts	State recommended certain mergers; but trial court nevertheless imposed sentences on merged counts	Novoa: Consecutive sentences unlawful, and sentencing on merged counts violates merger doctrine	Trial court erred by imposing sentences on counts it had merged. Sentencing on merged counts is plain error; sentence vacated and remanded for limited resentencing so state may elect which merged counts to prosecute/sentence (consecutive-sentence challenge rendered moot by remand)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (trial court need only inform defendant of maximum for each individual offense; aggregate total not required)
State v. Bishop, 155 Ohio St.3d 156 (distinguishes Johnson re: postrelease-control consequences)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (distinguishes constitutional vs. nonconstitutional components of Crim.R. 11)(
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ruff allied-offense merger test—consider conduct, import, and animus)
State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (elements of tampering with evidence)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (when offenses merge court must allow state to elect which count to sentence; cannot sentence on merged counts)
State v. Damron, 129 Ohio St.3d 86 (merger requires state election; sentencing on merged counts improper)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (sentencing on merged counts is plain error and prejudicial)
State v. Larsen, 89 Ohio App.3d 371 (multiple violations of same statute may be separate offenses when based on separate acts)