State v. Phipps
2016 Ohio 663
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellee State of Ohio v. Sharvess M. Phipps, Franklin County case No. 15AP-524.
- Phipps pled guilty to 21 of 41 charges arising from robberies, burglaries, and home invasions in 2012.
- Initial sentencing 1/25/2013: aggregate term 172 years 11 months; resentencing 6/14/2013: aggregate term 150 years.
- This court’s Phipps I remanded to address R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences and potential merger of aggravated robbery and kidnapping.
- Phipps filed a postconviction relief petition; trial court denied; appeal followed.
- Resentencing hearings occurred multiple times; final resentencing on 4/22/2015 again imposed 150 years; corrected entries followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravated robbery and kidnapping merge under R.C. 2941.25(A). | Phipps argues merger; record shows same conduct. | State contends separate offenses committed with distinct import. | Yes; offenses merge; merger on sentencing required. |
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence during pendency of postconviction appeal. | Phipps asserts lack of jurisdiction during appeal. | State asserts court retained jurisdiction. | Court was not divested; resentence valid. |
| Whether the court erred by failing to consider youth in imposing life-related sentence. | Phipps argues Miller/Graham/Roper extend to him due to age. | Court declines extension absent authority. | No extension; youth not considered relevant under those holdings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (Ohio 2006) (trial court lacks authority to reconsider final judgments in criminal cases; pendency does not divest jurisdiction for collateral relief)
- State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355 (Ohio 2010) (jurisdictional rules for appellate review and collateral proceedings)
- Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (limitations on certain postconviction-related motions; distinguish from guilty-plea withdrawals)
- Morgan v. Eads, 104 Ohio St.3d 142 (2004) (courts may hear postconviction petitions during direct appeals)
- Bowman, 2003-Ohio-5341 (Ohio 2003) (amended judgments during direct appeal; different posture from postconviction relief)
- Hunt, 2005-Ohio-3144 (Ohio 2005) (amended judgments while direct appeal pending; distinguish from postconviction context)
- Ibrahim v. State, 2014-Ohio-5307 (Ohio 2014) (postconviction relief as civil collateral attack, not appeal of conviction)
- Davis, 2014-Ohio-90 (Ohio 2014) (merger/analysis context for allied offenses; reliance on Ruff framework)
- Ruff v. State, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015-Ohio-995) (redefines allied-offenses analysis under 2941.25(A))
- Corker v. State, 2013-Ohio-5446 (Ohio 2013) (analysis of whether offenses are allied; priority to merged sentence)
- Noor v. State, 2014-Ohio-3397 (Ohio 2014) (kidnapping/robbery merger analysis guidance)
- Sidibeh v. State, 2011-Ohio-712 (Ohio 2011) (fact patterns guiding merger analysis for kidnapping/robbery)
- Vance v. State, 2012-Ohio-2594 (Ohio 2012) (length and circumstances of restraint affecting merger)
- Broomfield v. State, 2013-Ohio-1676 (Ohio 2013) (restraint duration and transfer of victim during robbery as merger factor)
- Rolland v. State, 2013-Ohio-2950 (Ohio 2013) (Separation of juvenile/offender considerations; extension issues)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (Eighth Amendment; youth sentencing analysis)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile life-without-parole protections; developmental considerations)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (age-based distinctions in juvenile punishment; development)