State v. Stone

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Adam Stone’s convictions and consecutive sentences for telecommunications fraud and attempted impersonation of a peace officer or private police officer. The court held that the record supported the trial court’s consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and that the offenses did not merge as allied offenses because they were based on separate and distinct conduct.

Holdings

1. The consecutive sentences were lawful because the trial court made the required statutory findings and the record did not clearly and convincingly fail to support those findings or establish that the sentence was contrary to law.
2. The offenses did not merge because they were based on separate and distinct conduct, even though the impersonation was committed in furtherance of the fraud and with the same animus.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's consecutive-sentence findings under Ohio Revised Code section 2929.14(C)(4) were unsupported by the record or resulted in a sentence contrary to law.
2. Whether telecommunications fraud and attempted impersonation of a peace officer or private police officer were allied offenses of similar import requiring merger under Ohio Revised Code section 2941.25 and the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

Disposition

affirmed