State v. WitwerState v. Witwer
Lead Opinion
Appellee herein was convicted of a violation of
“(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide, a felony оf the fourth degree.
The penalties for commission of a fourth degree felony are set forth in
“(D) Whoever is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the third or fourth degree and did not, during the commission of that offense, cause physical harm to any person or make an actual threat of physical harm to any person with a deadly weapon, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, and who has not previously been convicted of an offense of violence shall be imprisoned for a definite term, and, in addition, may be fined or required to make restitution. The restitution shall be fixed by the court as provided in this section. If a person is conviсted of or pleads guilty to committing, attempting to commit, or complicity in committing a violation of section 2909.03 of the Revised Code that is a felony of the third or fourth degree and is sentenced pursuant to this division, he shall be required to reimburse agencies for their investigation or prosecution costs in accordance with section 2929.28 of the Revised Code.
“The terms of imprisonment shall be imposed as follows:
“(1) For a felony of the third dеgree, the term shall be one, one and one-half, or two years;
“(2) For a felony of the fourth degree, the term shall be six months, one year, or eighteen months.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus,
“(B) Except as provided in division (D) of this section, section 2929.71, and Chapter 2925. of the Revised Code, terms of imprisonment for felony shall be imposed as follows:
<( * * *
“(7) For a felony of the fourth degree, the minimum term shall be eighteen months, two years, thirty months, or three years, and the maximum term shall be five years.” (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, where an accused commits a fourth degree felony causing physical harm he is eligible to be sentenced pursuant to
“Imposition of an indefinite term pursuant to division (B)(6) or (7) of
“ ‘Specification (or, Specification to the. First Count). The grand jurors (or insert the person’s or the prosecuting attorney’s name when appropriate) further find and specify that (set forth the allegation either that, during the commission of the offense, the offender caused physical harm to any person, or made an actual threаt of physical harm to any person with a deadly weapon, or that the offender has previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense of violence).’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, an accused may be sentenced to the indefinite term of incarceration provided by
Thus, a conviction on the specification contained in
Accordingly, we conclude that a court of common pleas may impose the indefinite term of incarceration prescribed by
Appellee was thereafter sentenced to a term of incarceration of from two and one-half to five years. On August 21, 1990, a journal entry was filed by the common pleas court, which reflected that appellee had been sentenced to a term оf two and one-half to five years for violation of
“Assignment of Error No. Four: The indeterminate sentence imposed by the trial court subjected appellant to double jeopardy contrary to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Ohio.”
His brief explained the assignment of error as follows:
“The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amеndment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution prohibit cumulative punishments for the same offense. Brown v. Ohio (1977),
The court of appeals entertained the appeal on this basis and, while rejecting the double jeopardy argument, concluded that the imposition оf the penalty under
“Obviously cognizant of our decision in [State v.] Patton [ (Feb. 11, 1991), Stark App. No. CA-8236, unreported,
“Death being the ultimate physical harm any offender can cause, we believe that ‘tacking on ’ the physical harm specification (at the discretion of the prosecution) is improper, inconsistent, and violative of due process. We conclude that the crime itself for aggravated vehicular homicide subsumes the physical harm specification.
“Appеllant’s third assignment of error is sustained. See our disposition of this cause as to certification infra and in the judgment entry.” (Emphasis added.)
Appellee has appeared pro se before this court. The substance of the arguments made for both parties to this court is that
We decline to resolve the present controversy on this basis. As reflected by the record, appellee was sentenced to an indefinitе term of incarceration of from two and one-half to five years on the underlying felony. No separate penalty has been imposed for the specification. Unlike
In order for the penalty to be imposed, the indictment must include the specification as well as a count referring to the underlying felony. Inclusion of the specification in the indictment accomplishes a twofold purpose. It alerts an accused that the fourth degree felony of which he has been charged constitutes a felony the commission оf which caused physical harm to a person. The specification further apprises the accused that commission of the underlying felony subjects him to the indefinite term of incarceration prescribed by
While appellee challenges this procedure on a constitutional basis, a close analysis of the provisions of
The determination below that imposition of the indefinite term of incarceration constituted separate рunishment depriving appellee of his liberty without due process of law is unsupported by the law or the record of the trial court proceedings imposing sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for reimposition and execution of the original sentence.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Notes
. The subsequent amendment of
. Our discussion herein is limited to the circumstances presented by the instant cause which authorize the imposition of the indefinite term of incarceration provided by
. While this requirement may appear, on first impression, to involve a redundancy, it is clearly intended to apprise a criminal defendant of the charges against which he must defend and the potential penalty he faces upon conviction. Likewise, requiring a separate jury specification assures that, in the unlikely event that the defendant is charged with the commission of a fourth degree felony which does not involvе physical harm and a specification to the contrary is contained in the indictment, the specification can be stricken by the trial court or a jury verdict thereon which is unsupported by any evidence of physical harm can be set aside.
. In this regard, the specification to which
However, as is the case with all specifications, the specification in
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. I must dissent from the majority opinion because I do not believe that the conclusions rеached comport with the legislative intent of the statute construed.
<((1) * * *
U * + *
“(3) An offense, other than a traffic offense, under an existing or former municipal ordinance or law of this or any other state or the United States, committed purposely or knowingly, and involving physical harm to persons or a risk of serious physical harm to persons[.]” (Footnote added.)
The crimes listed in
In addition to these enumerated crimes, the legislature has also provided that an offense committed purposely or knowingly, and involving physical harm to persons or a risk of serious physical harm to persons is also an “offense of violence.”
The culpable mental state of the crime of aggravated vehicular homicide is recklessness, not a higher degree of mental culpability required for crimes of violence, which, in my view, would be required to consider an individual guilty of a specification of physical harm under
I conclude that the legislature intended that in order for
There are situations under the criminal laws where the legislature has clearly manifested an intention to allow the “tacking on” of elements of an offense to enhance the punishment of offenders involved in violent offenses. Our courts have properly recognized this justifiable legislative public policy determination. Accordingly, in State v. Jenkins (1984),
Unfortunately, I must admit that
[[Image here]]
. Paragraph (1) sets forth the following list of violent offenses, which does not include aggravated vehicular homicide:
“A violation of sections 2903.01, 2903.02, 2903.03, 2903.04, 2903.11, 2903.12, 2903.13, 2903.21, 2903.22, 2905.01, 2905.02, 2905.11, 2907.02, 2907.03, 2907.12, 2909.02, 2909.03, 2909.04, 2909.05, 2911.01, 2911.02, 2911.11, 2911.12, 2917.01, 2917.02, 2917.03, 2917.31, 2919.25, 2921.03, 2921.34, 2921.35, 2923.12, and 2923.13 of the Revised Code[.]"