No. 91-1052 | Ohio | Aug 19, 1992
Lead Opinion
Appellee herein was convicted of a violation of R.C. 2903.06. At the time of the offense, this section provided in relevant part:
“(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide, a felony of the fourth degree.
The penalties for commission of a fourth degree felony are set forth in R.C. 2929.11. R.C. 2929.11(D) provides as follows:
“(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 convicted 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 degree, 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, R.C. 2929.11(D), as relevant here,
“(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 R.C. 2929.11(B)(7). However, R.C. 2941.143, as relevant here, prescribes that, before one may be sentenced to the term of incarceration provided in R.C. 2929.11(B)(7), the indictment must have contained a specification stating that the accused caused physical harm in the course of committing a fourth degree felony. In this regard R.C. 2941.143 provides:
“Imposition of an indefinite term pursuant to division (B)(6) or (7) of section 2929.11 of the Revised Code is precluded unless the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offense specifies either that, during the commission of the offense, the offender caused physical harm to any person or made an actual threat of physical harm to any person with a deadly weapon, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, or that the offender has previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense of violence. Such a specification shall be stated at the end of the body of the indictment, count, or information and shall be in substantially the following form:
“ ‘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 threat 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 R.C. 2929.11(B)(7) only where he has been convicted pursuant to an indictment which charges him with a fourth degree felony the commission of which caused physical harm to a person and which also includes
Thus, a conviction on the specification contained in R.C. 2941.143 compels a trial court to impose an indefinite term of incarceration provided in R.C. 2929.11(B)(7) instead of a definite term of incarceration provided in R.C. 2929.11(D)(2). Therefore, R.C. 2941.143 merely directs the selection of a sentencing scheme for the underlying felony which differs from that which would otherwise have been imposed.
Accordingly, we conclude that a court of common pleas may impose the indefinite term of incarceration prescribed by R.C. 2929.11(B)(7) where an accused has been convicted of a fourth degree felony the commission of which caused physical harm to any person, provided the indictment which initiated the criminal proceeding contains the specification contained in R.C. 2941.143 and the accused is convicted thereon.
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 of two and one-half to five years for violation of R.C. 2903.06. Nevertheless, in his brief to the court of appeals, appellee set forth the following assignment of error:
“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 Amendment 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), 432 U.S. 161" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1977-06-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/brown-v-ohio-109695?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="109695">432 U.S. 161 [97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187]. It is clear that the trial court imposed two punishments upon Appellant for one offense.” (Emphasis added.)
The court of appeals entertained the appeal on this basis and, while rejecting the double jeopardy argument, concluded that the imposition of the penalty under R.C. 2941.143 constituted a denial of liberty to appellee without due process of law. In this regard, the appellate court stated:
“Obviously cognizant of our decision in [State v.] Patton [ (Feb. 11, 1991), Stark App. No. CA-8236, unreported, 1991 WL 17777], cited supra, this court holds that it is redundant and unwarranted to include the physical harm specification in the offense of aggravated vehicular homicide, notwithstanding whether there were injuries caused from the event which subsequently caused death (as in Kavlich and Runnels) or whether death was immediate as in the case sub judice.
“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.
“Appellant’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 R.C. 2941.143 authorizes imposition of a sentence in addition to that imposed for a felony of the fourth degree where the specification is in the indictment and the accused is convicted thereon. The difference in the positions of the parties concerns whether such a practice is constitutional.
We decline to resolve the present controversy on this basis. As reflected by the record, appellee was sentenced to an indefinite 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 R.C. 2929.71, R.C. 2929.11(B) does not provide for the imposition of an additional sentence. R.C. 2941.143 merely sets forth the procedure which must be followed in order to sentence one convicted of a fourth degree felony to the indefinite term of incarceration prescribed by R.C. 2929.11(B)(7), as R.C. 2941.141 does for the additional term prescribed by R.C. 2929.71. Moreover, the sentence imposed upon appellee does not constitute an enhancement of a penalty he would have otherwise received for commission of the same act. Rather, the sentence is dependent upon the nature of the felony which he committed and compliance with the procedural requisites of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2941.143.
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 of 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 R.C. 2929.11(B)(7). Furthermore, appellee may be sentenced to the indefinite term of incarceration provided in R.C. 2929.11(B)(7) only where he has been convicted of a fourth degree felony the commission of which would cause physical harm to a person (e.g., R.C. 2903.06) and is further convicted of a specification which charges that he did, in fact, cause physical harm to a person in the commission of the fourth degree felony.
While appellee challenges this procedure on a constitutional basis, a close analysis of the provisions of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2941.143 reveals no constitutional defect. It can hardly be disputed that it is well within the province of the Ohio General Assembly to impose a more severe sentence for
The determination below that imposition of the indefinite term of incarceration constituted separate punishment 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.
. The subsequent amendment of R.C. 2903.06(B) has elevated this offense to a felony of the third degree.
. 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 R.C. 2929.11(B)(7) (i.e., commission of a fourth degree felony which causes physical harm). In the interests of clarity, we have omitted reference to the alternate circumstances under which imposition of the indefinite term is permitted (e.g., the actual threat of physical harm with a deadly weapon).
. 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 involve 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 R.C. 2941.143 relates differs from the specification contained in R.C. 2941.141. Unlike the latter specification, the former specification does not authorize the imposition of a term of incarceration in addition to that imposed for the underlying felony. R.C. 2929.71 provides that persons who have a firearm while committing a felony are subject to threé years’ actual incarceration in addition to the term of incarceration for the underlying felony. R.C. 2941.141 accomplishes this purpose by referring to R.C. 2929.71, which prescribes the three-year additional sentence. In contrast, R.C. 2941.143 does not prescribe a term of incarceration in addition to the term on the underlying felony, but permits an indefinite term of incarceration to be imposed on the underlying felony where the defendant has been indicted, tried and convicted of the specification. R.C. 2941.143 accomplishes this purpose by referring to R.C. 2929.11(B)(7). Thus, conviction on the specification under R.C. 2941.143 permits the imposition of a greater but not additional term of incarceration.
However, as is the case with all specifications, the specification in R.C. 2941.143 (as well as in R.C. 2941.141) must be included in the indictment and the defendant must be convicted thereon in order for the particular consequences arising therefrom to transpire.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. I must dissent from the majority opinion because I do not believe that the conclusions reached comport with the legislative intent of the statute construed.
R.C. 2941.143 is intended by the General Assembly to enhance the penalty of felonies of the third and fourth degree in which the offender, while committing the underlying violent offense, also injures or threatens to injure any person with a deadly weapon. This point was emphasized in the state’s brief as follows: “ * * * it should be assumed that the legislature enacted Revised Code 2941.143 for its obvious purpose: to punish those offenders who commit what are necessarily violent offenses at least as severely] if not more severe[ly] than other non-violent offenders. Any other interpretation of
<((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 R.C. 2901.01(I)(1) as offenses of violence are homicide (not including aggravated vehicular homicide), assault, menacing, kidnapping, abduction, extortion, rape, sexual battery, felonious sexual penetration, arson, disrupting public services, vandalism, robbery, burglary, inciting to violence, riot, inducing panic, domestic violence, intimidation, escape, aiding escape, carrying concealed weapons, and having weapons under disability.
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.” R.C. 2901.01(I)(3). Under this portion of the definition, in order for the offense to be one of “violence,” there must be knowledge, intent or scienter, which is obviously absent in the charge of vehicular homicide or aggravated vehicular homicide.
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 R.C. 2941.143.
I conclude that the legislature intended that in order for R.C. 2941.143 to be applicable, there must be an offense that had an animus separate from the enhancement criteria of harm or threat of harm. The underlying offense here, the crime of aggravated vehicular homicide, could not have been committed without causing physical harm. As noted by the appellee in his
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), 15 Ohio St. 3d 164" court="Ohio" date_filed="1984-12-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-jenkins-6758671?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758671">15 Ohio St.3d 164, 177-178, 15 OBR 311, 322-323, 473 N.E.2d 264" court="Ohio" date_filed="1984-12-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-jenkins-6758671?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758671">473 N.E.2d 264, 279-280, this court held the aggravated murder statute constitutional even assuming that some aggravating factors that may be “tacked on” to an indictment for aggravated murder would simply duplicate an element of the offense, since similar factors are used to elevate the offense from murder to aggravated murder. R.C. 2923.13, commonly referred to as the weapons under disability statute, prohibits certain persons, including fugitives from justice, persons convicted of any felony of violence, and persons who are drug dependent or chronic alcoholics, from acquiring, carrying or using a firearm. The violation of this section could reasonably be added to the violation of another section of criminal law; also, the firearm specification of R.C. 2929.71 may be properly added as an enhancement to the underlying crime.
Unfortunately, I must admit that R.C. 2941.143 may conceivably be interpreted as the majority has done here, but as expressed within my dissent I conclude that the General Assembly intended otherwise. In that the majority has so determined that R.C. 2941.143 does apply to aggravated vehicular homicide, I must dissent therefrom, and strongly suggest that the General Assembly needs to review the public policy issues within this section of law as interpreted by this majority.
[[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[.]"