State v. Spears
2011 Ohio 1538
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Corey Spears pleaded guilty to three offenses: weapons under disability (RC 2923.13(A)(2)), improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle (RC 2923.16(A)), and discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited premises (RC 2923.162(A)(3)), each with firearm specifications.
- The trial court sentenced Spears to consecutive terms totaling ten years and nine months, plus a 21-month post-release control term.
- Spears challenged the convictions and sentences by three assignments of error raised on appeal.
- The court ultimately sustained the first and third assignments and overruled the second, with vacatur of two firearms offenses and remand for further proceedings.
- The transitional-control provision was deemed premature in the sentencing entry, as the notice and report requirements had not yet been provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the allied offenses of improper handling in a vehicle and discharging near a prohibited premise merged? | Spears contends merger is required under R.C. 2941.25 and Johnson. | State argues the offenses are dissimilar or separately committed, justifying separate penalties. | Merged; offenses are allied of similar import. |
| May a firearm specification be punished separately when the firearm is an element of all offenses? | Spears argues double jeopardy by imposing a firearm spec for an element of multiple offenses. | State maintains firearm specs are sentencing provisions, not separate offenses. | Overruled; firearm specification may be imposed separately. |
| Was the sentence improper by including a directive about transitional control before notice from the parole authority? | Spears argues the court cannot restrict transitional control before notice and report. | State asserts the court may include transitional-control considerations in sentencing. | SUSTAINED; transitional-control aspect vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vasquez, 18 Ohio App.3d 92 (1984) (firearm specs treated as sentencing provisions; merger analysis separate from base offenses)
- State v. Price, 24 Ohio App.3d 186 (1985) (merger framework for firearm specifications and allied offenses)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 450 U.S. 279 (1981) (double jeopardy and multiple punishments in sentencing; hierarchy of merger and consecutive terms)
- State v. Ford, 2009-Ohio-6724 (Ohio) (firearm specifications are separate from underlying offenses; merger not required)