State v. Washington
137 Ohio St. 3d 427
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Washington was convicted in 2009 of multiple offenses, including failure to comply with a police officer and obstruction of official business.
- On resentencing, the state argued the two offenses arose from separate conduct (car chase vs. foot chase).
- The court of appeals reversed, saying Johnson limited consideration to the state’s trial theory.
- This Court overruled that view, holding Johnson requires reviewing the entire record for merger, not just trial theory.
- The Court held the trial court must consider information presented at sentencing to determine if the offenses were committed separately or with separate animus.
- The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson limits conduct consideration to trial theory | Washington relied on Johnson to bar trial-theory focus | Washington argues same-conduct doctrine controlled at trial | No; must review full sentencing record |
| Whether review at sentencing can consider information beyond trial | State argues trial record suffices | Washington argues sentencing record is unnecessary | Yes; sentencing record must be reviewed |
| Whether conduct constituting two offenses can be same act | Washington contends same act merged offenses | State contends separate conduct supports two offenses | Mercury: depends on entire record; not solely trial theory |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (syllabus: conduct must be considered in R.C. 2941.25 analysis)
- State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126 (1979) (two elements and similar import; merger doctrine origin)
- State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (1999) (abstract first-prong similar import analysis)
- State v. Mitchell, 6 Ohio St.3d 416 (1983) (two-prong test; similar import then conduct/animus)
- State v. Blankenship, 38 Ohio St.3d 116 (1988) (second prong—conduct and animus)
- State v. Mughni, 33 Ohio St.3d 65 (1987) (burden on defendant to show same conduct for merger)
- State v. Cooper, 104 Ohio St.3d 293 (2004) (sentencing may involve merger considerations)