State v. Rogers
143 Ohio St. 3d 385 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An accused's failure to raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import at a sentencing hearing forfeits the issue for appellate review, except for plain error. To establish plain error, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable probability that the offenses were allied, meaning they were committed with the same conduct and without a separate animus.
Facts:
- Frank Rogers fled from Cleveland police officers who were attempting a traffic stop.
- Upon his arrest, officers searched Rogers's van and discovered four tires and rims.
- The tires and rims had been removed from a stolen Ford F-150 pickup truck that was later found sitting on cinder blocks.
- Police also found a jack, a tow chain, and a lug-nut wrench in Rogers's van.
- While these charges were pending, Rogers was arrested again for a separate incident.
- In the second incident, Rogers sold stolen jewelry and other items to a pawn shop.
- The property sold to the pawn shop belonged to two different victims.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Rogers was indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury in eight separate cases.
- Rogers pleaded guilty in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) to multiple counts of receiving stolen property (RSP) and one count of possessing criminal tools (PCT) across two of the cases.
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for each count, and Rogers did not object or raise the issue of allied offenses at sentencing.
- Rogers appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, arguing for the first time that several of his convictions should have merged for sentencing.
- A three-judge panel of the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no plain error because the record was insufficient to determine if an error occurred.
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals, acting on its own initiative (sua sponte), granted en banc review of the case.
- The en banc appellate court reversed in part, holding that the trial court committed plain error by failing to inquire whether the RSP and PCT offenses related to the truck should merge, and remanded that portion of the case.
- The en banc appellate court certified that its decision was in conflict with decisions from other Ohio appellate districts, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit plain error by failing to inquire at sentencing whether multiple offenses should merge as allied offenses of similar import when the defendant does not raise the issue, and the record does not clearly demonstrate that the offenses were allied?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Donnell, J.
No. A trial court does not commit plain error by failing to inquire about allied offenses when the defendant forfeits the issue by not raising it, unless the defendant can meet the high burden of demonstrating plain error on the record. An accused’s failure to raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import in the trial court forfeits all but plain error. To establish plain error, the accused has the burden to demonstrate from the record a reasonable probability that the convictions are for allied offenses committed with the same conduct and without a separate animus. The court reasoned that placing this burden on the defendant promotes judicial economy by incentivizing parties to raise all errors at the trial level where they can be most easily corrected. The court rejected the appellate court's creation of a new rule that would impose a duty on trial courts to inquire about merger whenever a 'facial question' of allied offenses arises, as this would be tantamount to treating a forfeited error as presumptively prejudicial. Applying this standard, Rogers failed to show a reasonable probability that his receiving stolen property (RSP) convictions for the truck and the tires were allied, as it was reasonable to infer they were separate acts. Furthermore, the two RSP convictions involving jewelry from two separate victims were not allied because offenses committed against different victims are of dissimilar import.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - O'Neill, J.
Yes. The trial court's failure to consider merging the receiving-stolen-property (RSP) offenses was plain error. While agreeing with the majority on the separate-victim rule, the dissent argues that the majority misapplied the plain-error standard. The standard only requires a 'reasonable probability' of prejudice, which is met when the possibility of error is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. The Ohio statute on allied offenses, R.C. 2941.25(A), requires merger where conduct 'can be construed' as allied, which creates a mandatory duty for the court to consider merger whenever it is merely possible. Given the obvious connection between a stolen truck and the tires from that same truck, the trial court’s 'glaring failure to even consider merging' the offenses was an obvious error. The possibility that the offenses should have merged is enough to undermine confidence in the lawfulness of the sentence, thereby satisfying the plain error standard.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between waiver and forfeiture in the context of allied-offense claims, placing a significant procedural burden on criminal defendants. By holding that silence at sentencing constitutes forfeiture rather than waiver, the court preserves the possibility of review but makes it much more difficult by limiting it to the stringent plain error standard. This ruling effectively requires defense counsel to affirmatively raise merger issues at sentencing to preserve them for appeal. Consequently, it discourages appellate courts from remanding cases for fact-finding on forfeited allied-offense claims where the record is undeveloped, thereby promoting finality and judicial economy at the expense of potentially correcting sentencing errors.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Rogers