State v. Polus (Slip Opinion)
145 Ohio St. 3d 266
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Walter Polus pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property: one fifth-degree felony and one first-degree misdemeanor, after the state amended a felony count to a misdemeanor as part of a plea agreement.
- The trial court sentenced Polus to 11 months for the felony and six months for the misdemeanor, ordering the misdemeanor term to run consecutively to the felony term.
- The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed as to consecutive sentencing of the misdemeanor, holding the misdemeanor must run concurrently with the felony and certifying a conflict with other districts.
- The State sought review; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the conflict question: whether a trial court may impose consecutive sentences for felony and misdemeanor convictions under R.C. 2929.41(B)(1).
- The parties agreed R.C. 2929.41(B)(3) (a narrow exception permitting consecutive misdemeanor-to-felony sentences in certain motor-vehicle and violent-felony contexts) did not apply.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding R.C. 2929.41(A) requires concurrent sentences for felony and misdemeanor convictions except where (B)(3) applies; (B)(1) does not authorize general consecutive sentencing for misdemeanors to felony terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a trial court impose consecutive sentences for a misdemeanor and a felony under R.C. 2929.41(B)(1)? | State: (Appellant) R.C. 2929.41(B)(1) authorizes courts to specify that misdemeanor jail terms run consecutively to other terms. | Polus: (Appellee) R.C. 2929.41(A) requires misdemeanor sentences to run concurrently with felony terms except where (B)(3) applies; (B)(1) cannot override (A). | No. R.C. 2929.41(A) mandates concurrent sentencing for misdemeanor and felony convictions except for the narrow (B)(3) exceptions; (B)(1) does not permit general consecutive misdemeanor-to-felony sentences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butts v. State, 58 Ohio St.3d 250 (1991) (holding that a misdemeanor sentence must be served concurrently with a felony sentence)
- Johnson v. State, 116 Ohio St.3d 541 (2008) (interpreting R.C. 2929.41(B)(1) as directing consecutive sentences for specified misdemeanors)
- In re T.R., 120 Ohio St.3d 136 (2008) (statutory interpretation principle: apply plain language unless ambiguous)