State v. Ulinski
2016 Ohio 8386
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Todd Ulinski pleaded guilty in two separate Lucas County cases: a fifth-degree felony nonsupport (one count) and several misdemeanors arising from a February 2, 2016 incident (assault, obstructing official business, resisting arrest).
- Facts of the February 2 incident: officer confronted Ulinski at a gas-station lot while he sat on an ATV after a 9-1-1 drug-use call; Ulinski refused commands, attempted to leave, dragged the officer causing scrapes/bruises, resisted handcuffing, and a needle was found.
- Pleas/sentences: guilty/no-contest pleas; trial court sentenced 11 months on nonsupport (plus large arrearage), 180 days for assault, and 90 days each for obstructing and resisting—those 90-day terms concurrent with each other but consecutive to the 180-day assault term.
- The trial court stayed the sentences and placed Ulinski on four years of community control to begin after he serves 11 months for the nonsupport conviction.
- Ulinski appealed, raising three errors: (1) assault and obstructing official business are allied offenses requiring merger; (2) misdemeanor sentences must run concurrently under R.C. 2929.41(A); and (3) separate case sentencing on same day effectively merged cases, so community control could not be deferred until after felony incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misdemeanor assault and obstructing official business are allied offenses requiring merger | State: separate convictions are permissible when supported by separate conduct/animus | Ulinski: both crimes arose from the same conduct/mental state and must merge | Court: offenses were committed by separate conduct/animus; no merger. |
| Whether misdemeanor jail terms must be served concurrently with other sentences under R.C. 2929.41(A) | Ulinski: misdemeanor sentences should run concurrently, not consecutively to other misdemeanor/felony terms | State: R.C. 2929.41(A) applies only when consecutive jail/prison terms are imposed (actual incarceration) | Court: misdemeanor sentences were stayed and community control imposed; R.C. 2929.41(A) and Polus do not require concurrent terms here. |
| Whether sentencing in two separate cases on same day effectively merged cases so community control cannot be deferred until after felony incarceration | Ulinski: simultaneous sentencing amounts to merger and statutory concurrency rules should apply | State: cases are distinct; joint hearing done for judicial economy; community control cannot practically start while incarcerated | Court: cases were unrelated; community control may commence after incarceration; no improper merger. |
| Whether Polus requires different result where felony and misdemeanor are sentenced together | Ulinski: relies on Polus to argue consecutive jail terms prohibited | State: Polus limited to actual consecutive jail/prison sentences imposed | Court: Polus inapplicable because misdemeanors were stayed and not subject to consecutive incarceration. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (sets framework for allied-offenses analysis: consider conduct, animus, and import)
- State v. Polus, 145 Ohio St.3d 266 (2016) (holds R.C. 2929.41(B)(1) prohibits imposition of consecutive jail/prison sentences for felony and misdemeanor when consecutive incarceration is actually imposed)