State v. Willan
144 Ohio St. 3d 94
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Willan was convicted in 2008 on 68 counts related to Evergreen Homes, L.L.C. and Evergreen Investment Corp.; key counts involved false representations in securities registrations and thefts; the RICO conviction depended on a pattern of corrupt activity consisting of predicate offenses including false representation, aggravated theft, and theft from the elderly; the jury did not specify which predicates formed the RICO pattern; the trial court imposed a mandatory ten-year term under former R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a).
- The jury found three false-representation counts involving Form D securities exemptions valued at over $100,000 each, making them first-degree felonies; the three predicates were alleged to form the RICO pattern.
- On appeal, the court of appeals reversed some theft predicates and affirmed the three false-representation predicates; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for Alleyne-based reconsideration.
- The majority (this opinion) holds Alleyne does not require jury findings for legal determinations that increase punishment and that the necessary determinations here were legal, not factual; the ten-year term remains mandatory; the dissent would reverse, arguing Alleyne requires reversal because predicates were not jury-found facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Alleyne require jury findings for predicates of a RICO pattern? | Willan | Willan (the state) | No Alleyne violation; predicates are legal findings. |
| Are the steps identifying corrupt activity and classifying counts as first-degree felonies legal determinations rather than factual findings? | Willan | Willan | Yes; these are legal determinations under statute and jury verdict. |
| Is any Apprendi/Alleyne error harmless given overwhelming evidence? | Willan | Willan | Yes; any error is harmless. |
| Does the jury’s failure to specify the RICO predicates undermine the mandatory ten-year sentence? | Willan | State | No; sufficient legal formulation supports the sentence. |
| Does Alleyne require reversal of the RICO conviction and sentence in this case? | Willan (dissent) | State (majority) | Majority rejects; Willan's conviction stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing punishment beyond the maximum must be proven to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. (2013) (mandatory-minimums facts must be submitted to a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (guided Apprendi on sentencing facts)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (statutory interpretation not judicial fact-finding in sentencing)
- Gabrion v. United States, 719 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2013) (illustrates Apprendi/Alleyne limitations in statute interpretation)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1997) (sufficiency of evidence is a question of law)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional violations)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury’s role in factual determinations; standard for fairness)
- Foster v. Ohio, 2006-Ohio-856 (Ohio 2006) (court may rely on statute and verdict for certain legal findings)