State v. Williams (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 403
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Defendant Cameron D. Williams broke into his ex-wife’s apartment, killed Darían Polk, and committed related offenses; jury convicted him of multiple counts including two aggravated murders and one murder (lesser-included).
- At sentencing the trial court found Counts 1 (murder), 2 (aggravated murder), and 3 (aggravated murder) to be allied offenses and stated they were merged for sentencing, the state elected Count 3 for sentencing, but the journal entry nonetheless imposed concurrent sentences for all three counts.
- On direct appeal the Ninth District affirmed most convictions; Williams did not raise the merger/sentence issue on direct appeal.
- Years later Williams moved to correct his sentence, arguing the concurrent sentences for merged allied offenses were contrary to law and therefore void; trial court denied and the Ninth District held res judicata barred the claim.
- The Ninth District certified a conflict with the Eighth District (State v. Holmes) about whether sentences imposed after a court already found merger are void or barred by res judicata; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted and decided the certified question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether separate sentences imposed for offenses the trial court found were allied and "merged" are void or subject to res judicata | Sentences are void because R.C. 2941.25 mandates merger; concurrent sentences are not lawful substitute and thus void and reviewable anytime | Error was not jurisdictional; such sentencing errors are voidable, not void; res judicata should bar collateral attack after direct appeal | When a trial court actually concludes offenses are allied and subject to merger, imposing separate sentences (even concurrent ones) is contrary to law and those parts of the sentence are void; res judicata does not bar correction |
| Remedy when sentence is partly void for merged allied offenses | Seeks de novo resentencing to merge into a single conviction | State concedes error but argues voidness would undermine Rogers and forfeiture principles | If state elected an allied offense at the original sentencing hearing, appellate court may correct the journal entry without remand by vacating the unauthorized sentences and leaving the elected sentence intact |
| Interaction with waiver/forfeiture/forfeited plain error rule (Rogers) | Voidness means waiver/forfeiture cannot preclude relief | State: Rogers shows allied-offense errors can be forfeited; appellate courts need not correct forfeited errors | Rogers distinguishes cases where the trial court made no merger finding; here the court found offenses allied, so Rogers does not prevent correction of a void sentence |
| Scope of void-sentence doctrine — whether it extends beyond postrelease‑control and other statutory mandatory terms | A court has no authority to impose sentences contrary to statute; mandamus/voidness principles apply when a court disregards R.C. 2941.25 | State warns expansion would erode res judicata and conflict with precedent | Court holds void-sentence doctrine applies when a trial court imposes separate sentences after finding merger because such sentencing is contrary to law (i.e., court lacked authority for the separate sentences) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2941.25 protects against multiple sentences for allied offenses; state elects which allied offense will be sentenced)
- State v. Damron, 129 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 2011) (concurrent sentences are not the equivalent of merging allied offenses)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (a sentence that fails to include a statutorily mandated term is void and reviewable at any time; remedies may include correcting without remand in some cases)
- State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (failure to raise allied-offense issue forfeits all but plain error when the court made no merger finding)
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (trial courts have a mandatory duty to merge allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25)
- State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 1984) (a court’s disregard of statutory sentencing requirements can render an attempted sentence a nullity)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2009) (failure to impose statutorily mandated postrelease control renders that portion of the sentence void)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (Ohio 2013) (void‑sentence jurisprudence does not apply to all challenges to whether offenses are allied when the court did not find them allied)