State v. Pierce
2017 Ohio 9058
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2004 a Montgomery County grand jury indicted James E. Pierce on multiple counts including aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, kidnapping and firearm specifications; abduction was nolled.
- A jury convicted Pierce in 2006 on the remaining counts; the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 51 years to life and mandatory post-release control.
- Pierce pursued several postconviction and interlocutory motions and multiple appeals; some appeals were dismissed for lack of a final appealable order or timeliness.
- Pierce filed three motions decided September 19, 2016: (1) resentencing under Crim.R. 52(B) alleging allied-offense merger error; (2) modification of court-ordered cost payments from his inmate account; and (3) resentencing under R.C. 2967.28 claiming improper post-release control. The trial court overruled all three.
- The Second District allowed a delayed appeal and affirmed, finding the trial court properly imposed post-release control, that Pierce forfeited or was barred by res judicata from raising allied-offense merger, and that the court correctly applied the inmate-account administrative rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pierce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper imposition of mandatory post-release control under R.C. 2967.28 | Court complied; entry included five-year post-release control on first-degree counts | Trial court failed to include mandatory post-release control in sentencing entries | Affirmed — entry expressly imposed five years on first-degree counts, satisfying R.C. 2967.28 |
| Whether allied offenses should have been merged (Crim.R. 52(B)/plain error) | Issue forfeited because not raised at trial or on direct appeal; res judicata bars review | Several convictions are allied offenses and unmerged sentences are void; plain error requires resentencing | Affirmed — defendant forfeited the claim and, in any event, res judicata prevents collateral review here |
| Whether trial court should modify order allowing withdrawals from inmate account for court costs (Ohio Adm.Code 5120-5-03) | Administrative rule governs withdrawals; court cannot override by excusing costs | Requested modification to permit family payments/remove hold and/or set $20/mo payments from inmate account | Affirmed — court properly applied current administrative rule; court lacks authority to rewrite the regulation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 71 N.E.3d 234 (Ohio 2016) (trial court has mandatory duty to merge allied offenses but failure to do so must be raised timely)
- State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (claims not raised at trial are forfeited on appeal)
- State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata)
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Nat’l Lime & Stone Co., 627 N.E.2d 538 (Ohio 1994) (administrative rules issued under statutory authority have the force of law unless unreasonable or in conflict with statute)