State v. Rice
2020 Ohio 4404
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Dashawn L. Rice was indicted for burglary, robbery (physical harm), and grand theft after allegedly kicking down his ex-girlfriend S.L.'s front door, shoving her to the ground, taking her car keys and a cell phone, and driving away in her vehicle.
- Jury convicted Rice of burglary and robbery but acquitted him of grand theft.
- At trial the court excluded public-assistance (MCJFS) records Rice subpoenaed showing mail to S.L.'s address; Rice argued they would show a live-in relationship.
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive prison terms: robbery (indefinite 5–7.5 years) and burglary (5 years), totaling 10–12.5 years.
- Rice appealed, raising: (1) failure to make an allied-offense determination and failure to merge under R.C. 2941.25; (2) evidentiary exclusion of MCJFS records; and (3) that consecutive-sentence findings were unsupported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rice) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Trial court failed to make an allied-offense determination at sentencing | Imposition of separate sentences and consideration of memoranda/hearing implicitly rejected merger; failure to state a finding on the record is not necessarily reversible error | Court erred by not making the required allied-offense finding on the record; sentence contrary to law | No plain error: imposition of separate sentences was an implicit allied-offense determination and not contrary to law (affirmed) |
| 2) Whether robbery and burglary should merge under R.C. 2941.25 | Offenses are of dissimilar import: burglary completed when Rice forcefully entered with intent to commit a crime; robbery involved later theft with physical harm | Offenses arose from same conduct and therefore are allied and must merge | Held not allied: burglary (forceful entry/intent) and robbery (subsequent theft + physical harm) involved separate conduct and identifiable harm; no merger |
| 3) Exclusion of MCJFS public-assistance records from evidence | Exclusion within trial court discretion; records were untimely and admission would cause undue delay/cumulative presentation | Exclusion denied Rice material, impeaching evidence and prejudiced his defense | Error in stated reason but exclusion was harmless and proper under Evid.R. 403(B): records were cumulative re: trespass and would have caused delay; no reversal |
| 4) Consecutive sentences: findings supported by the record? | Trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and reviewed the PSI showing lengthy, violent criminal history supporting consecutive terms | Findings unsupported; court did not adequately rely on PSI or record to justify consecutive terms | Held supported: court stated it reviewed the PSI and the PSI documented extensive criminal and violent history; consecutive terms affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403, 71 N.E.3d 234 (2016) (imposing separate sentences is not contrary to law even if court fails to state an allied-offense finding on the record)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482, 983 N.E.2d 1245 (2012) (de novo review framework for allied-offense merger analysis)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 34 N.E.3d 892 (2015) (three-part allied-offense test: import, separate conduct, separate animus)
- State v. Earley, 145 Ohio St.3d 281, 49 N.E.3d 266 (2015) (applying Ruff; courts must consider conduct, animus, and import)
- State v. Jackson, 149 Ohio St.3d 55, 73 N.E.3d 414 (2016) (burglary and subsequent robbery were separate offenses where robbery occurred after burglary was complete)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (2014) (trial court must make required consecutive-sentence findings on the record but need not state supporting reasons)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)