Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 04-14-2020
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO vs. HAROLD CHANDLER
Case Number: C-190174
C-190175
Judge: Marilyn Zayas
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Need help finding a lawyer for representation for appealing sentences, after a guilty pleas, for burglary and attempted arson in Ohio?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free.
Description:
MoreLaw ReceptionistsVOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services
Call 918-582-6422 Today
Chandler was charged with two counts of aggravated arson and
burglary for breaking into Tracey Jackson’s apartment and setting fire to her bed,
creating a serious risk of physical harm to her and causing physical harm to the
building. The fire caused damage to Jackson’s apartment and the building.
Chandler pled guilty to attempted arson for causing physical harm to the building
and burglary. At the sentencing hearing, Chandler argued that the offenses were
allied and should merge because he committed the offenses with a single course of
conduct. The trial court determined the offenses should not merge, and sentenced
him to 36 months’ incarceration on each offense, to be served consecutively.
Standard of Review
{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Chandler argues that the trial court
erred by sentencing him on allied offenses that were subject to merger under R.C.
2941.25. We conduct a de novo review because Chandler raised the argument before
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
3
the trial court, and the trial court made a merger determination. See State v.
Shelton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170547, 2018-Ohio-3895, ¶ 44.
Law and Analysis
{¶5} Under R.C. 2941.25, a trial court must merge offenses if the conduct of
the defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of a similar
import, and this conduct shows that the offenses were not committed separately or
with a separate animus. See State v. Bailey, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140129, 2015-
Ohio-2997, ¶ 74. The determination of whether offenses are allied contemplates
“three separate factors-the conduct, the animus, and the import.” State v. Ruff, 143
Ohio St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995, 34 N.E.3d 892, paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶6} Offenses of dissimilar import exist when the conduct involves separate
victims or if each offense caused separate, identifiable harm. Id. at paragraph two of
the syllabus. Separate convictions are permitted for allied offenses if the offenses
were (1) dissimilar in import or significance, (2) committed separately, or (3)
committed with a separate animus or motivation. Id. at paragraph three of the
syllabus. A reviewing court may end its analysis upon finding that any one of the
three applies. Bailey at ¶ 83.
{¶7} Chandler was convicted of attempted arson in violation of R.C.
2909.03(A)(1), which states, “No person, by means of fire or explosion, shall
knowingly do any of the following: (1) Cause, or create a substantial risk of, physical
harm to any property of another without the other person’s consent[.]” The relevant
burglary statute, R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), provides that no person, by force, shall “trespass
in an occupied structure or in a separately secured or separately occupied portion of
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
4
an occupied structure, with purpose to commit in the structure or separately secured
or separately occupied portion of the structure any criminal offense.”
{¶8} With respect to the attempted arson, the harm involved in the offense
was to the property of Jackson, the property of her neighbors, and to the apartment
building. The harm involved in the burglary offense was the intrusion into the home
of Jackson. See State v. Ruff, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120533 and C-120534, 2015-
Ohio-3367, ¶ 13. Therefore, the offenses are of dissimilar import because the harm
that resulted from the attempted arson is separate and identifiable from the harm
due to the burglary. See Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995, 34 N.E.3d 892, at
paragraph one of the syllabus. Consequently, we overrule the assignment of error.
Outcome: Accordingly, having overruled Chandler’s sole assignment of error, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court. Because Chandler has abandoned his other
appeal, we dismiss the appeal numbered C-190175.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: