State v. Savage
2012 Ohio 2435
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Delano Savage indicted on four counts each of aggravated robbery and kidnapping, with gun specifications for each count.
- On March 10, 2008, Savage entered into a plea agreement for a total agreed term of ten years, with dismissal of one count and related gun specs.
- The plea arranged four-year terms for each aggravated robbery and kidnapping count, three years for each gun specification, to be served consecutively before the concurrent counts; several gun specs would merge.
- Savage was sentenced on March 11, 2008 in accordance with the plea; this court later affirmed the conviction and sentence in State v. Savage, 7th Dist. No. 08-MA-54, 2009-Ohio-7011.
- Savage later filed pro se motions asserting allied offenses and void-sentence claims; the trial court denied, and he appealed.
- The issues concern whether consecutive sentences for two gun specifications arising from the same incident were proper under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a)/(g) and whether the sentence is void; the court ultimately addresses whether the sentence is void and whether the two specifications could be imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are two firearm specifications permissible when connected to multiple felonies from the same act? | Savage argues two specs create improper multiple terms for the same act. | Savage contends the specs should merge and limit punishment. | Not void; two specs permitted under statute. |
| Is Savage's sentence void for not merging allied offenses? | Savage asserts allied offenses require merger, rendering sentence void. | Savage implies error but lacks merit given plea and statutory guidance. | Sentence not void; doctrine of res judicata does not apply to void sentence; two specs allowed under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stansell, 8th Dist. No. 75889 (2000) (upholding negotiated sentences with allied offenses considerations)
- State v. Henderson, 12th Dist. No. CA99-01-002 (1999) (plea agreements can withstand allied offenses challenges)
- State v. Coats, 10th Dist. No. 98AP-927 (1999) (enforcing plea agreements despite allied offenses concerns)
- State v. Hooper, 2005-Ohio-7084 (5th Dist.) (waiver applies to allied offenses challenge when defendant pleaded guilty to both crimes)
- State v. Gopp, 2003-Ohio-4908 (-) (separate offenses may be punished separately with separate animus)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (final judgment bars certain defenses; res judicata general principle)