State v. Wohl

[Cite as State v. Wohl, 2017-Ohio-4367.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2016-11-218
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
OPINION
: 6/19/2017
- vs -
:
CAMRON VICTOR WOHL, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2016-06-0791
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Willa Concannon, Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-
appellant
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Camron Victor Wohl, appeals from his conviction in the
Butler County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to three counts of rape, one count
of burglary, and one count of kidnapping. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On June 20, 2016, the Butler County Grand Jury returned an indictment
charging Wohl with three counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), one count of
Butler CA2016-11-218
aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), and kidnapping R.C. 2905.01(A)(2), all
first-degree felonies. According to the bill of particulars, the charges stemmed from Wohl's
conduct on the afternoon of May 31, 2016, when Wohl digitally, vaginally, and anally raped
the 73-year-old victim after robbing her of her prescription pain medication and forcing her
into her basement holding her at knife-point. Wohl then poured bleach over the victim's head
and tied her to a bookshelf in an attempt to evade detection. At the time of the offense, Wohl
was 27 years old.
{¶ 3} On August 22, 2016, Wohl entered a guilty plea to the three counts of rape, one
count of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1), a second-degree felony, and kidnapping.
Thereafter, on November 10, 2016, the trial court sentenced Wohl to a total aggregate term
of 35 years in prison. Wohl now appeals, raising a single assignment of error for review.
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO
MERGE MR. WOLH'S CONVICTIONS OF RAPE AND BURGLARY AS REQUIRED BY R.C.
2941.25.
{¶ 5} In his single assignment of error, Wohl argues his conviction for burglary and
three counts of rape are allied offenses of similar import that should have been merged for
purposes of sentencing. We disagree.
{¶ 6} It is undisputed that Wohl did not argue that his convictions for burglary and
three counts of rape were allied offenses of similar import. An accused's failure to raise the
issue of allied offenses of similar import in the trial court forfeits all but plain error and a
forfeited error is not reversible error unless it affected the outcome of the proceeding and
reversal is necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice. State v. Williams, 148 Ohio
St.3d 403, 2016-Ohio-7658, ¶ 25. Pursuant to Crim.R. 52(B), plain error exists where there
is an obvious deviation from a legal rule that affected the outcome of the proceeding. State
v. Blanda, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-03-050, 2011-Ohio-411, ¶ 20, citing State v. Barnes,
-2-
Butler CA2016-11-218
94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 2002 Ohio 68 (2002). The imposition of multiple punishments for allied
offenses of similar import amounts to plain error. State v. Willis, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2012-08-155, 2013-Ohio-2391, ¶ 35.
{¶ 7} Pursuant to R.C. 2941.25, Ohio's multiple-count statute, the imposition of
multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct is prohibited. State v. Brown, 186 Ohio
App.3d 437, 2010-Ohio-324, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.). Specifically, R.C. 2941.25 states:
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to
constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the
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.
{¶ 8} Although previously applying the two-part test as outlined in State v. Johnson,
128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, the Ohio Supreme Court has since clarified the test for
allied offenses in State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St. 3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995. Under the Ruff test, in
determining whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import within the meaning of R.C.
2941.25, "courts must evaluate three separate factors – the conduct, the animus, and the
import." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. In conducting this analysis, if any of the
following is true, the offenses cannot merge and the defendant may be convicted and
sentenced for multiple offenses: (1) the offenses are dissimilar in import or significance, in
other words, each offense caused separate, identifiable harm; (2) the offenses were
committed separately; and (3) the offenses were committed with separate animus or
motivation. Id. at ¶ 25. Thus, "two or more offenses of dissimilar import exist within the
meaning of R.C. 2941.25(B) when the defendant's conduct constitutes offenses involving
separate victims or if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable."
-3-
Butler CA2016-11-218
Id. at ¶ 26. This court applies a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court's R.C.
2941.25 merger determination. State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482, 2012-Ohio-5699, ¶
28.
{¶ 9} As noted above, Wohl was convicted of one count of burglary and three counts
of rape, crimes which he alleges are allied offenses of similar import that should have
merged for purposes of sentencing. However, after a thorough review of the record, and
contrary to Wohl's claim otherwise, it is clear that the burglary was already completed once
Wohl forced his way into the victim's home. State v. Jackson, 149 Ohio St.3d 55, 2016-Ohio-
5488, ¶ 129. Wohl then committed three separate acts of rape, with an identifiable harm for
each, by raping the victim digitally, vaginally, and anally. "It is well-established that distinct,
different kinds of sexual activity constitute separate offenses for sentencing purposes." State
v. Chamberlain, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2013-04-004, 2013-Ohio-4619, ¶ 71. Therefore,
based on the record before this court, we cannot say the trial court erred, let alone committed
plain error, by imposing separate sentences for each of these offenses. Accordingly, Wohl's
single assignment of error is without merit and overruled.
{¶ 10} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.
-4-