State v. Boyer

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed Brayden Boyer’s convictions and aggregate 20-to-23-year prison sentence arising from multiple felony cases resolved through a plea agreement. The court held that the agreed sentences were not subject to merger as allied offenses of similar import because the offenses involved separate victims and were of dissimilar import. The court also rejected Boyer’s argument that the trial court failed to consider the felony-sentencing purposes and factors under Ohio Revised Code sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Holdings

1. The court did not decide whether R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) independently barred the appeal because the State forfeited that argument by failing to raise it. The court proceeded to address Boyer's substantive assignments of error.
2. The offenses were not allied offenses of similar import and did not require merger because they were of dissimilar import. The firearm-discharge offense protects the public and prohibits firing upon or over a public road or highway, while felonious assault requires physical harm or an attempt to cause physical harm to a particular person.
3. Boyer's felony sentences were not contrary to law because the record, including the sentencing entries, demonstrated consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12; the statutes do not require specific fact-findings on the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Boyer's jointly agreed sentences were appealable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).
2. Whether discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises and felonious assault were allied offenses of similar import requiring merger under R.C. 2941.25.
3. Whether the trial court's felony sentences were contrary to law because the court allegedly failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.

Disposition

affirmed