State v. Lee , 190 Ohio App. 3d 581 ( 2010 )

[Cite as State v. Lee, 190 Ohio App.3d 581, 2010-Ohio-5672.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
THE STATE OF OHIO,
APPELLEE, CASE NO. 3-10-11
v.
LEE, OPINION
APPELLANT.
THE STATE OF OHIO,
APPELLEE, CASE NO. 3-10-12
v.
STALL, OPINION
APPELLANT.
THE STATE OF OHIO,
APPELLEE, CASE NO. 3-10-13
v.
WEESE, OPINION
APPELLANT.
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
Appeals from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court Nos. 09-CR-0169, 09-CR-0170 and 09-CR-0179
Judgment Affirmed in Case No. 3-10-11
Judgment Affirmed in Case No. 3-10-13
Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and
Cause Remanded in Case No. 3-10-12
Date of Decision: November 22, 2010
APPEARANCES:
Clifford J. Murphy, Assistant Crawford County Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Geoffrey L. Stoll, for appellants.
PRESTON, Judge.
{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants, Robert Lee, Malcolm Stall, and Michael
Weese (collectively, “defendants”), appeal the Crawford County Court of
Common Pleas judgment denying their joint motion to merge offenses as allied
offenses of similar import. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment as to case No. 3-10-13 (Weese), affirm the trial court’s judgment as to
case No. 3-10-11 (Lee), and affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s
judgment as to case No. 3-10-12 (Stall).
-2-
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
{¶ 2} This case concerns a home invasion that took place on October 18,
2009, at a residence in Galion, Ohio that was owned by an elderly couple,
Kathleen and Sam Siclair. Specifically, at issue on this appeal is whether certain
offenses arising out of the home invasion should have been merged because the
offenses are allied offenses of similar import.
{¶ 3} The general facts of the case are stated as follows. Late in the
evening on October 18, 2009, defendants Lee, Weese, and Stall went to the
Siclairs’ home with the purpose of stealing from the home approximately $40,000
in cash, which the defendants believed was hidden in a freezer in the Siclairs’
basement. Defendants tried for approximately one hour to covertly gain entrance
into the home, but discovered that all of the doors and windows were locked.
During this time, Lee noticed that Mr. Siclair was asleep in one of the bedrooms,
while Mrs. Siclair was sitting on the floor in the living room seemingly watching
TV.
{¶ 4} Consequently, defendants decided to enter the residence by knocking
on the door and forcing their way into the home.
{¶ 5} At approximately 11:00 p.m., Weese went to the back door and
knocked on the door. Mrs. Siclair got up, went to answer the back door, and saw a
young man (Weese) with a coat covering his mouth. Weese informed Mrs. Siclair
that he had a question for her, at which point Weese pushed the door open with
-3-
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
such force that it knocked Mrs. Siclair to the ground, causing her to hit her head on
the back of an end table and suffer a concussion. Additionally, Mrs. Siclair stated
that after she was pushed and hit her head on the end table, she was also punched
in the face, which resulted in a cut to her head that required seven stitches at the
hospital.
{¶ 6} Upon gaining entry in the house, Lee and Weese proceeded to search
the house for the $40,000 they believed was hidden in a freezer in the basement.
Meanwhile, Stall dragged Mrs. Siclair from the porch into the kitchen and
wrapped duct tape around her head to cover her mouth. Mrs. Siclair testified that
while searching the house, defendants repeatedly demanded that she disclose the
location of the money and drugs, and when she did not give them a location, she
was hit with a closed fist. In addition, Mrs. Siclair testified to the difficulty she
had breathing due to the duct tape, the pain from being struck repeatedly, along
with the fact that she suffers from COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).
During the entire home invasion, Mr. Siclair was asleep in a different room, and
because of a severe hearing disability did not hear anything.
{¶ 7} Eventually, after cutting the telephone cords to the house, defendants
left the home and took with them jewelry and drugs that they had found inside the
Siclairs’ house. Subsequent to defendants’ departure, Mrs. Siclair crawled her
-4-
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
way to where her husband was sleeping, woke him up, and used a cell phone to
call the police.
{¶ 8} On November 9, 2009, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted all
three defendants with the following charges:1 aggravated burglary in violation of
R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), a felony of the first degree; aggravated robbery in violation of
R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), a felony of the first degree; and felonious assault in violation
of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree. Stall was additionally
charged with kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(3), a felony of the first
degree. Lee was indicted in case No. 09-CR-0169 (appellate case No. 3-10-11),
Stall was indicted in case No. 09-CR-0170 (appellate case No. 3-10-12), and
Weese was indicted in case No. 09-CR-0179 (appellate case No. 3-10-13).
{¶ 9} Defendants were arraigned on November 16, 2009. Defendants filed
a joint motion to continue their trials on January 8, 2010. Along with the motion
to continue, the motion also requested that the trial court issue an order precluding
convictions on the counts of aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and
kidnapping. Defendants argued in their motion that pursuant to R.C. 2941.25, the
felonious-assault and the kidnapping counts were allied offenses of similar import
to the aggravated-robbery count, and thus, defendants could be convicted only on
1
Two of the defendants were indicted on additional counts for actions committed separately from the
October 2009 home invasion. Defendant Lee was also indicted on two additional counts, breaking and
entering and aggravated robbery, with respect to separate events that had taken place in September 2009.
Defendant Stall was also indicted on one unrelated count of possession of drugs.
-5-
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
the aggravated-robbery count. The state filed its response to defendants’ motion
on January 11, 2010, claiming that the issue of merger could be determined only at
the sentencing phase of the trial.
{¶ 10} On January 11, 2010, the trial court issued its order, denying the
portion of the motion that was seeking a continuance of the trial date. Thereafter,
on January 21, 2010, defendants appeared before the trial court, entered pleas of
guilty to the charges set forth in the indictments, and requested to reserve the right
to argue the issue of merger at sentencing. Judgment entries of conviction were
issued on February 1, 2010.
{¶ 11} On March 4, 2010, defendants filed their response to the state’s
memorandum in opposition on the merger issue. On that same date, the state filed
its allied-offense brief, and on March 5, 2010, defendants filed their allied-offense
brief.
{¶ 12} A hearing on the merger issue was held on March 5, 2010.
Defendant Lee, Mrs. Siclair, and Detective Chad Filliater testified at the hearing.
Following the presentation of the evidence, the trial court allowed defendants and
the state time to present their written closing arguments. Defendants and the state
filed their final briefs on March 15, 2010. Thereafter, on March 31, 2010, the trial
court issued its ruling on the merger issues, denying the motion to merge the
-6-
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
offenses of felonious assault and kidnapping with the offense of aggravated
robbery.
{¶ 13} Defendants were sentenced on April 5, 2010, as follows: on the
aggravated-burglary offense, Lee, Weese, and Stall were all sentenced to ten years
in prison; on the aggravated-robbery offense, Lee, Weese, and Stall were all
sentenced to ten years in prison; on the felonious-assault offense, Lee, Weese, and
Stall were all sentenced to eight years in prison; and as to Stall on the kidnapping
offense, he was sentenced to ten years in prison. All of defendants’ prison
sentences, including the additional unrelated sentences, were ordered to be served
consecutively.
{¶ 14} Defendants now appeal and raise only one assignment of error:
The trial court erred in failing to hold that offenses of aggravated
robbery, felonious assault and kidnapping were allied offenses of
similar import, requiring merger of the offenses for purposes of
sentencing.
{¶ 15} In defendants’ only assignment of error, they argue that the trial
court erred when it failed to find that the offenses of aggravated robbery, felonious
assault, and kidnapping were allied offenses of similar import, and as such, the
offenses should have merged for purposes of sentencing.
{¶ 16} R.C. 2941.25 is Ohio’s multiple-count statute. It provides:
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to
constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the
-7-
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses,
but the defendant may be convicted of only one.
(B) Where the defendant’s conduct constitutes two or more
offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or
more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or
with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may
contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be
convicted of all of them.
{¶ 17} In order to determine whether the trial court should have merged any
of the offenses, we must apply the two-step analysis established by the Ohio
Supreme Court. State v. Harris, 122 Ohio St.3d 373, 2009-Ohio-3323, 911
N.E.2d 882, ¶ 10-13, citing State v. Blankenship (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 116, 117,
526 N.E.2d 816. See also State v. Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447, 2008-Ohio-4569,
895 N.E.2d 149, ¶ 18. First, the court must compare the elements of the crimes.
“If the elements of the offenses correspond to such a degree that the commission
of one will result in the commission of the other, the crimes are allied offenses of
similar import.” Id. at ¶ 19, citing Blankenship at 117. If the offenses are found to
be allied offenses of similar import, then the court must proceed to the second
step, which calls for reviewing the defendant’s conduct in order to determine
whether the defendant can be convicted of both offenses. “If the court finds either
that the crimes were committed separately or that there was a separate animus for
each crime, the defendant may be convicted of both offenses.” Brown at ¶19,
citing Blankenship at 117. Additionally, because this assignment of error presents
-8-
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
a question of law, our standard of review is de novo. State v. Loomis, 11th Dist.
No. 2002-A-0102, 2005-Ohio-1103, ¶8, citing State v. Ellenburg (July 9, 1998),
4th Dist. No. 97CA597, at *3.
{¶ 18} We note that the law regarding allied offenses of similar import has
been frequently addressed and discussed by the Ohio Supreme Court. In fact,
regarding the first step in the analytical process, the Ohio Supreme Court has had
to clarify its holding in State v. Rance (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 632, 710 N.E.2d 699,
paragraph one of the syllabus, in which the court held that “[u]nder an R.C.
2941.25(A) analysis, the statutorily defined elements of offenses that are claimed
to be of similar import are compared in the abstract.” (Emphasis sic.) Instead of
considering the elements of the offenses within the context of the facts of the
particular case, the Supreme Court found that comparing the elements in the
abstract was “the more functional test.” Id. at 636. In doing so, the Supreme
Court in Rance effectively overruled its prior analytical framework established in
Newark v. Vazirani (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 81, 83, 549 N.E.2d 520, in which the
court essentially compared the statutory elements of the offenses by reference to
the particular facts alleged in the indictment. Rance at 637-640.
{¶ 19} However, after Rance, several courts were interpreting the holding in
Rance as requiring a strict textual comparison of the elements of the offenses and
were only aligning the elements of the compared offenses in determining whether
-9-
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
the compared offenses were allied offenses of similar import. As a result, the
Ohio Supreme Court clarified Rance in State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54,
2008-Ohio-1625, 886 N.E.2d 181, and held that “[i]n determining whether
offenses are allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25(A), courts are
required to compare the elements of offenses in the abstract without considering
the evidence in the case, but are not required to find an exact alignment of the
elements.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. Since then,
the Supreme Court has consistently looked in the abstract at the elements of the
crimes charged to determine whether they are allied offenses of similar import,
and if so, then looked to the defendant’s conduct in the particular case to
determine whether the offenses were committed separately or with a separate
animus. See State v. Williams, 124 Ohio St.3d 381, 2010-Ohio-147, 922 N.E.2d
937, ¶ 23-27 (determining that attempted murder pursuant to R.C. 2903.02(A) and
felonious assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) were allied offenses and that
under the facts of the case were committed with the same animus); State v.
Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 29-33 (holding
that it was plain error to sentence defendant for two counts of aggravated theft and
two counts of theft that were allied offenses of similar import, even though
defendant’s sentences would remain the same length of time and despite defendant
having agreed to the sentence); State v. Harris, 122 Ohio St.3d 373, 2009-Ohio-
- 10 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
3323, 911 N.E.2d 882, ¶ 15-20 (holding that robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)
and aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) are allied offenses because
possession of a deadly weapon during a theft also constitutes a threat to inflict
physical harm and that felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and
2903.11(A)(2) are allied offenses); State v. Winn, 121 Ohio St.3d 413, 2009-Ohio-
1059, 905 N.E.2d 154, ¶ 13-25 (“[w]hen analyzed in the abstract, the crime of
kidnapping, defined by R.C. 2905.01(A)(2), and the crime of aggravated robbery,
defined by R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), are allied offenses of similar import” since
presence of a weapon that has been shown or used also forcibly restrains the
liberty of another); State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-1625, 886
N.E.2d 181, ¶ 28-33 (holding that when offenses were analyzed in the abstract, the
offense of possessing a controlled substance under R.C. 2925.11(A) and the
offense of trafficking in a controlled substance under R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) were not
allied offenses, but the offense of possessing a controlled substance under R.C.
2925.11(A) and the offense of trafficking in a controlled substance under R.C.
2925.03(A)(2) were allied offenses).
{¶ 20} With that stated, we will now consider the particular offenses that
defendants claim are allied offenses of similar import. In this particular case, all
three defendants were charged with aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and
felonious assault, and only Stall was additionally charged with kidnapping.
- 11 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
However, we note that for purposes of this appeal, defendants have not alleged
that the count of aggravated burglary should have merged with the counts of
aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and kidnapping. Thus, we will only
consider whether the offenses of aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and
kidnapping should have merged for purposes of sentencing.
Aggravated Robbery and Felonious Assault
{¶ 21} Here, defendants pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery pursuant to
R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), which states that “[n]o person, in attempting or committing a
theft offense, * * * shall * * * [i]nflict, or attempt to inflict, serious physical harm
on another.” Additionally, defendants pleaded guilty to felonious assault as
prescribed under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), which states that “[n]o person shall
knowingly * * * cause serious physical harm to another.” When comparing the
elements of the offenses in the abstract, it appears that the commission of the
aggravated robbery by attempting or inflicting serious physical harm would
necessarily result in the commission of a felonious assault, which is the infliction
of serious physical harm. However, the state claims that the Ohio Supreme Court
has already ruled that the offenses of aggravated robbery and felonious assault are
not allied offenses of similar import. In State v. Preston, the Ohio Supreme Court
determined whether the crimes of aggravated robbery and felonious assault were
allied offenses of similar import and ultimately held that “[u]pon review of the
- 12 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
record, we find that the commission of the aggravated robbery did not
automatically result in the commission of the felonious assault. Preston came into
the market and committed the aggravated robbery. Jones then knocked the gun
from Preston’s hand and a struggle ensued. Preston retrieved his gun and
committed a second crime, felonious assault, by pointing the gun at Jones and
shooting him.” (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 64, 65-66, 491 N.E.2d 685. Since then,
several other appellate courts have cited Preston for the general proposition that
aggravated robbery and felonious assault are not allied offenses of similar import.
State v. Howell, 8th Dist. No. 92827, 2010-Ohio-3403; State v. Smith, 2nd Dist.
No. 08CA0060, 2009-Ohio-5048; State v. James, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-04-037,
2009-Ohio-1453; State v. Dixon, 4th Dist. No. 09CA3312, 2010-Ohio-5032; State
v. Allen, 115 Ohio App.3d 642, 685 N.E.2d 1304 (7th Dist.); State v. Jones (Mar.
13, 1991), 9th Dist. No. 14582. However, while the state urges this court to
follow the general proposition as stated in Preston, we are hesitant to do so for two
reasons.
{¶ 22} First of all, the particular subsections of aggravated robbery and
felonious assault analyzed by the Supreme Court in Preston differ from the
subsections of aggravated robbery and felonious assault charged in this particular
case. In Preston, the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery pursuant to
R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) (having a deadly weapon on one’s person while committing a
- 13 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
theft offense) and felonious assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) (causing
serious physical harm by means of a deadly weapon). 23 Ohio St.3d at 67
(Celebrezze, C.J., concurring). Here, defendants were charged with aggravated
robbery pursuant to R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) (inflicting serious physical harm while
committing a theft offense) and felonious assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)
(causing serious physical harm). When considering the elements of aggravated
robbery pursuant to R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and felonious assault pursuant to R.C.
2903.11(A)(2) in the abstract, we acknowledge that the two charges are not allied
offenses of similar import, since aggravated robbery requires the mere possession
of a deadly weapon, while felonious assault requires the actual use of a deadly
weapon to cause or attempt to cause serious physical harm to another. State v.
Gonzalez (Mar. 15, 2001), 8th Dist. No. 77338, at *7-8 (recognizing that Preston
looked only to the facts of the case when determining offenses were not allied
offenses, but after looking at the elements the appellate court held that aggravated
robbery required only possession of deadly weapon while felonious assault
required actual use of a deadly weapon to cause physical harm). Even the state
acknowledges that Preston did not deal with the same subsections for aggravated
robbery and felonious assault as were charged in this particular case; nevertheless,
the state points to a Second District case that applied the Preston holding to the
exact same charges as in the case sub judice. See State v. Smith, 2nd Dist. No.
- 14 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
08CA0060, 2009-Ohio-5048, ¶20. In Smith, while citing the Supreme Court’s
opinion in Preston, the Second District held that aggravated robbery pursuant to
R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) and felonious assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (2)
were not allied offenses of similar import. Id.{¶ 23} While the charges in Smith were identical to the charges in the case
sub judice, we still are hesitant to follow the general proposition in Preston and
cited by Smith because second, and most importantly, we note that the Supreme
Court’s analytical framework in Preston differs from the analytical framework it
now uses and has significantly discussed in its recent cases involving allied
offenses of similar import. Importantly, as defendants point out in their reply
brief, Preston was decided based on the analytical framework that was overruled
by the Supreme Court in Rance. See Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632, paragraph one of
syllabus. Specifically, in Preston, the Ohio Supreme Court found that “upon
review of the record,” the offenses of aggravated robbery and felonious assault did
not automatically result in the commission of the other. 23 Ohio St.3d at 65-66.
This was because based on the facts of the case Jones had separately committed
the aggravated robbery and then later committed the felonious assault. Id.
However, the approach used by the Supreme Court in Preston is not the same
approach it has recently used; rather, the court has made it clear that the first step
in the allied-offenses analysis is to look at the elements of the offenses charged in
- 15 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
the abstract. Compare Rance at paragraph one of the syllabus with Preston, 23
Ohio St.3d at 65-66. Essentially, the Supreme Court has required that we first
compare the elements of the offenses in the abstract, that is, by the elements
established by the General Assembly, and not based on the facts of each case.
Rance at 639.
{¶ 24} Consequently, for the above two reasons, we are hesitant to rely on
the Supreme Court’s holding in Preston and the subsequent appellate cases that
have cited it for the general proposition that aggravated robbery and felonious
assault are not allied offenses of similar import. However, even assuming
arguendo that aggravated robbery pursuant to R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) and felonious
assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) are allied offenses of similar import, when
considering the second step in the allied-offenses analysis, under the particular
facts of this case, we find that the aggravated robbery and felonious assault were
committed separately and with separate animus.
{¶ 25} Again, “[i]f the court finds either that the crimes were committed
separately or that there was a separate animus for each crime, the defendant may
be convicted of both offenses.” Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447, 2008-Ohio-4569, at
¶19, citing Blankenship, 38 Ohio St.3d at 117. Here, based on the evidence
presented at the hearing, we find that there was evidence that the aggravated
robbery and the felonious assault were committed separately and were committed
- 16 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
with separate animus. In particular, the felonious assault was committed when,
after being pushed to the ground and hitting her head on the end table, Mrs. Siclair
was then punched in her face with such force that it caused her to bleed and
required seven stitches at the hospital. The facts indicate that the felonious assault
was committed with the purpose to debilitate Mrs. Siclair and render her
immobile. On the other hand, the aggravated robbery was completed when, after
being dragged into the kitchen, Mrs. Siclair was then punched several times with a
closed fist while the defendants demanded to know where the money, drugs, and
her purse were located. Again, the facts indicate that the purpose of hitting her
several times in the kitchen was to locate and obtain money and/or drugs, in other
words, the theft portion of the aggravated-robbery offense.2
{¶ 26} Therefore, we ultimately find that because the offenses were
committed separately and with separate animus, the trial court did not err in
sentencing the defendants separately on the aggravated-robbery and felonious-
assault counts.
Kidnapping and Aggravated Robbery
2
In its brief, the state argues that under the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Cooper, if we find
that the acts were committed separately or with separate animus, then we need not address at all whether
the offenses are allied offenses of similar import. 104 Ohio St.3d 293, 2004-Ohio-6553, 819 N.E.2d 657, ¶
17, 29-30. While we acknowledge that under Cooper’s holding, our allied-offense discussion may have
been unnecessary given the ultimate result, we believe it was still necessary to clarify our position with
respect to the aggravated-robbery and the felonious-assault offenses charged in this particular case,
especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent opinions regarding allied offenses of similar import.
- 17 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
{¶ 27} With respect to Stall, we must consider whether the offenses of
kidnapping as defined under R.C. 2905.01(A)(3) and aggravated robbery as
defined under R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) are allied offenses of similar import. R.C.
2905.01(A)(3) states that “[n]o person, by force, or deception * * * by any means,
shall remove another from the place where the other person is found or restrain the
liberty of the other person * * * [t]o terrorize, or to inflict serious physical harm on
the victim or another.” Moreover, as stated above, aggravated robbery pursuant to
R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) states that “[n]o person, in attempting or committing a theft
offense, * * * shall * * * [i]nflict, or attempt to inflict, serious physical harm on
another.”
{¶ 28} Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that kidnapping
pursuant to R.C. 2905.01(A)(2) and aggravated robbery pursuant to R.C.
2911.01(A)(1) were allied offenses of similar import. State v. Winn, 121 Ohio
St.3d 413, 2009-Ohio-1059, 905 N.E.2d 154, ¶25. While holding that the two
offenses were so similar that the commission of one necessarily resulted in the
commission of the other, the court also noted that its holding in Winn was
consistent with “30 years of precedent.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing State v. Logan (1979),
60 Ohio St.2d 126, 130, 397 N.E.2d 1345 (noting Logan “has been considered
authority for the proposition that kidnapping and robbery are allied offenses of
similar import”). See also State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 198, 473
- 18 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
N.E.2d 264, fn. 29 (pre-Rance case, citing Logan for the proposition that “implicit
within every robbery (and aggravated robbery) is a kidnapping”); State v. Fears
(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 329, 344, 715 N.E.2d 136 (unless offenses were committed
with separate animus, specifications for kidnapping merge with specifications for
aggravated robbery); State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, 880 N.E.2d
31, ¶204, citing Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d at 198 (“kidnapping is implicit within
every aggravated robbery”); Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-1625, at ¶
18, 25, 886 N.E.2d 181. Consequently, we must now consider Stall’s conduct to
determine whether he can be convicted of both kidnapping and aggravated
robbery.
{¶ 29} The Supreme Court has also discussed the “separate animus”
analysis with respect to kidnapping charges and has established the following
guidelines in determining whether kidnapping and another offense of the same or
similar kind are committed with a separate animus:
(a) Where the restraint or movement of the victim is merely
incidental to a separate underlying crime, there exists no separate
animus sufficient to sustain separate convictions; however, where
the restraint is prolonged, the confinement is secretive, or the
movement is substantial so as to demonstrate a significance
independent of the other offense, there exists a separate animus as to
each offense sufficient to support separate convictions;
(b) Where the asportation or restraint of the victim subjects the
victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm separate and apart
from that involved in the underlying crime, there exists a separate
animus as to each offense sufficient to support separate convictions.
- 19 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 397 N.E.2d 1345, at syllabus. As a result,
“when a kidnapping is committed during another crime, there exists no separate
animus where the restraint or movement of the victim is merely incidental to the
underlying crime.” Fears, 86 Ohio St.3d at 344, citing Logan at syllabus.
{¶ 30} In this case, we find that the facts indicate that the restraint and
movement of Mrs. Siclair were merely incidental to the underlying crime of
aggravated robbery. The facts in the record illustrate that after getting punched in
the face (which was the commission of the felonious assault as discussed above),
Mrs. Siclair was dragged by Stall over a step into the kitchen, at which point, Stall
then duct-taped her mouth. After taping her mouth, defendants began asking her
for the location of the money and drugs, and when Mrs. Siclair would not respond,
she was hit with a closed fist. Based on these facts, we fail to see how Stall’s
actions that are claimed to be “kidnapping” were anything other than actions in
furtherance of the aggravated robbery.
{¶ 31} Nevertheless, the state relies on the fact that Mrs. Siclair was
dragged over the step into the kitchen to support its claim that the kidnapping
offense was committed separately from the aggravated-robbery offense. However,
in Logan, the Supreme Court concluded that forcing the victim into an alley and
down a flight of stairs prior to raping her was merely incidental to the separate
underlying crime of rape, and thus, the charge of kidnapping should have merged
- 20 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
with the charge of rape. 60 Ohio St.2d at 132-136. In particular, the court found
that “[i]n the instant case, the restraint and movement of the victim had no
significance apart from facilitating the rape. The detention was brief, the
movement was slight, and the victim was released immediately following the
commission of the rape.” Id. at 135. If moving a victim into an alley and down a
flight of stairs did not give rise to a finding that the kidnapping offense was
committed separately at that point in time, we fail to see how moving Mrs. Siclair
into another room can, by itself, justify a finding that the kidnapping offense was
likewise committed at that point in time. See Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d at 132-136.
There is nothing in the record that indicates that Mrs. Siclair was moved from the
residence to another location; rather, she was simply moved from one room to
another.
{¶ 32} Despite the minimal movement of Mrs. Siclair, the state also claims
that Mrs. Siclair was subjected to a greater risk of harm beyond that already
created by the factors involved in the commission of the aggravated-robbery
offense when Stall duct-taped her mouth, which caused her to have difficulty
breathing. However, given the fact that defendants began repeatedly asking her
for the location of the money after Mrs. Siclair’s mouth was duct-taped, we
believe that taping Mrs. Siclair’s mouth only furthered defendants’ attempts at
intimidating her into revealing the location of the money, and thus had no
- 21 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
significance apart from facilitating the aggravated robbery. While we do not wish
to minimize the seriousness of the defendants’ actions or the effect that their
actions had on Mrs. Siclair, we simply cannot find that Mrs. Siclair was subjected
to a greater risk of harm beyond that already created by the factors involved in the
commission of the aggravated robbery. As the Supreme Court stated in Logan,
“when a person commits the crime of robbery, he must, by the very nature of the
crime, restrain the victim for a sufficient amount of time to complete the robbery.”
60 Ohio St.2d at 131, 14 O.O.3d 373, 397 N.E.2d 1345. “[W]ithout more, there
exists a single animus, and R.C. 2941.25 prohibits convictions for both offenses.”
Id. at 132. Here, the only restraint on Mrs. Siclair was when Stall placed duct tape
around her head to cover her mouth. There is nothing in the record to indicate that
her feet or arms were also bound together. In fact, as soon as defendants left the
house, Mrs. Siclair was able to freely move, and did so when she went to where
husband was sleeping, woke him up, and called the police. Thus, we find that the
facts in this case only indicate that the restraint and movement of Mrs. Siclair were
merely incidental to the underlying crime of aggravated robbery.
{¶ 33} Overall, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, and in light
of the Supreme Court’s decision in Logan, we cannot find that the kidnapping was
committed separately or with separate animus from the aggravated robbery.
Therefore, while we find that the trial court correctly sentenced Stall separately
- 22 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
with respect to the aggravated robbery and felonious assault, we find that Stall’s
kidnapping sentence should have merged with his aggravated-robbery sentence.
{¶ 34} Defendants’ only assignment of error is, therefore, sustained in part
and overruled in part.
{¶ 35} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellants Lee and Weese
herein in the particulars assigned and argued with respect to appellants’
assignment of error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in case Nos. 3-10-
11 and 3-10-13. However, having found partial error prejudicial to appellant Stall
herein in the particulars assigned and argued with respect to appellants’
assignment of error, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial
court in case No. 3-10-12 and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Judgment accordingly.
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J., and ROGERS, J., concur.
__________________
ROGERS, J., concurring separately.
{¶36} I concur fully in the majority opinion and conclusion that Stall’s
kidnapping sentence should have merged with his aggravated-robbery sentence in
case 3-10-12. Additionally, I concur with the majority’s conclusion in cases 3-10-
11, 3-10-12, and 3-10-13 that the offenses of felonious assault and aggravated
- 23 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
robbery were committed separately and with a separate animus; however, I wish to
elaborate on the majority’s analysis in reaching this conclusion.
{¶37} The majority finds that the defendants’ acts upon entering the
victim’s residence of pushing her to the ground, causing her to hit her head, and
punching her in the face constituted the offense of felonious assault and that the
felonious assault was committed with the purpose to debilitate the victim and
render her immobile. Additionally, the majority finds that the defendants’ acts
after dragging the victim into her kitchen of punching her several more times
while demanding to know where items were in the residence constituted the
offense of aggravated robbery and that the purpose of these punches was to locate
and obtain the items. I believe that an additional theory and additional case law
support the finding of a separate animus for the felonious assault and aggravated
robbery.
{¶38} This court has previously found that in determining whether a
separate animus exists for two offenses, a court may examine “case-specific
factors such as whether the defendant at some point broke ‘a temporal continuum
started by his initial act,’ [or] whether facts appear in the record that ‘distinguish
the circumstances or draw a line of distinction that enables a trier of fact to
reasonably conclude separate and distinct crimes were committed.’” State v.
Roberts, 180 Ohio App.3d 666, 2009-Ohio-298, ¶14, quoting State v. Williams,
- 24 -
Case No. 3-10-11, 3-10-12 and 3-10-13
8th Dist. No. 89726, 2008-Ohio-5286, ¶37; State v. Hines, 8th Dist. No. 90125,
2008-Ohio-4236, ¶48. See also State v. Cronin, 6th Dist. No. S-09-032, 2010-
Ohio-4717, ¶45; State v. Helms, 7th Dist. No. 08 MA 199, 2010-Ohio-4872, ¶52;
State v. Nuh, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-31, 2010-Ohio-4740, ¶16; Thompkins v. Ross
(S.D.Ohio 2009), 2009 WL 4842247, fn. 1.
{¶39} Here, I would find that the defendants’ act of dragging the victim to
another area of her home constituted a break in the temporal continuum or line of
distinction and that the defendants’ resumption of punching the victim following
this break would constitute a separate and distinct offense. Consequently, I would
find that a separate animus existed for the felonious assault and aggravated
robbery on this theory as well and would affirm the defendants’ convictions for
these separate offenses on that basis.
- 25 -