State v. Whitfield

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that, when allied offenses of similar import result in multiple punishments, the state retains the right to elect which offense to pursue at sentencing on remand. The court of appeals must reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new sentencing hearing rather than direct the vacation of a particular allied-offense conviction. The determinations of guilt for the allied offenses remain intact, while the offenses are merged for sentencing purposes.

Holdings

1. The State retains the right to elect which allied offense to pursue at sentencing on remand after an appeal.
2. Upon finding reversible error in the imposition of multiple punishments for allied offenses, a court of appeals must reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new sentencing hearing at which the State must elect which allied offense it will pursue.
3. The determinations of guilt for allied offenses remain intact before and after merger for sentencing; the trial court should not vacate or dismiss the guilt determination for the nonselected offense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether, after an appellate court finds reversible error because a defendant was sentenced for allied offenses of similar import, the State retains the right to elect which allied offense to pursue at sentencing on remand.
2. Whether the appellate court must reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new sentencing hearing rather than order the trial court to vacate one specified allied-offense conviction.
3. Whether the determinations of guilt for allied offenses remain intact after the offenses are merged for sentencing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded