Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 04-25-2022
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. JAMICHAEL L. HOWARD
Case Number: 29181
Judge: Candace C. Crouse
Court:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
On appeal from The
Plaintiff's Attorney: MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No. 0069384, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Cincinnati, Ohio - Criminal Defense lawyer represented defendant with appealing from his resentencing.
On January 11, 2019, a jury found Howard guilty of the following offenses
that were related to the fatal shooting of Darius Hall and the non-fatal shooting of David
Coleman.
Victim #1 Hall:
Felony Murder (serious physical harm) - unclassified felony
Felony Murder (deadly weapon) - unclassified felony
Felonious Assault (serious physical harm) – F2
Felonious Assault (deadly weapon) – F2
Discharge of Firearm on or Near Prohibited Premises – F1
-3-
Victim #2 Coleman:
Felonious Assault (serious physical harm) – F2
Felonious Assault (deadly weapon) – F2
Discharge of a Firearm on or Near Prohibited Premises – F1
{¶ 3} All of the felony murder and felonious assault offenses carried three-year
firearm specifications under R.C. 2941.145 and five-year firearm specifications under
R.C. 2941.146. The two offenses for discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited
premises also carried three-year firearm specifications under R.C. 2941.145.
{¶ 4} When sentencing Howard for the offenses related to Hall, the trial court
merged all of the felony murder offenses and the felonious assault offenses into one
conviction and imposed a sentence of 15 years to life in prison. The trial court also
imposed a concurrent sentence of eight years in prison for the offense of discharging a
firearm on or near a prohibited premises.
{¶ 5} As to the offenses concerning Coleman, the trial court merged the two
felonious assault offenses and imposed a sentence of eight years in prison. The trial
court ordered the eight-year sentence to run consecutively to the 15-year-to-life sentence
that was imposed for the offenses related to Hall. The trial court also imposed a
concurrent eight-year sentence for the offense of discharging a firearm on or near a
prohibited premises as related to Coleman.
{¶ 6} The trial court merged all of the three-year firearm specifications together and
all of the five-year firearm specifications together. As a result, the trial court imposed
only one three-year firearm specification and one five-year firearm specification to be
served consecutively to each other and prior and consecutively to the prison terms
-4-
imposed for Howard’s offenses. Therefore, the trial court sentenced Howard to a total,
aggregate term of 31 years to life in prison (3 years + 5 years + 15 years to life + 8 years).
{¶ 7} On February 27, 2019, Howard timely appealed from his judgment of
conviction and raised multiple assignments of error for this court to review. On March 4,
2019, the State filed a cross-appeal arguing that the trial court erred by merging all of the
three-year firearm specifications together. After reviewing the matter, we agreed with
the State and explained that while “ ‘[u]nder R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b), a trial court ordinarily
may not impose more than one prison term for firearm specifications for felonies that were
committed as part of the same act or transaction[,] * * * R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) creates an
exception.’ ” State v. Howard, 156 N.E.3d 433, 2020-Ohio-3819, ¶ 91 (2d Dist.), quoting
State v. Boyd, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-68, 2019-Ohio-1902, ¶ 31. We then explained
that the exception in R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) provides the following:
If an offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to two or more felonies,
if one or more of those felonies are aggravated murder, murder, attempted
aggravated murder, attempted murder, aggravated robbery, felonious
assault, or rape, and if the offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to a
specification of the type described under division (B)(1)(a) of this section in
connection with two or more of the felonies, the sentencing court shall
impose on the offender the prison term specified under division
(B)(1)(a) of this section for each of the two most serious specifications
of which the offender is convicted or to which the offender pleads
guilty and, in its discretion, also may impose on the offender the prison term
specified under that division for any or all of the remaining specifications.
-5-
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g).
{¶ 8} Because Howard was convicted of two felonies listed under R.C.
2919.14(B)(1)(g), i.e., murder as to Hall and felonious assault as to Coleman, and
because Howard was found guilty of a three-year firearm specification described under
R.C. 2919.14(B)(1)(a) in connection with both of those offenses, we found that “ ‘pursuant
to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g), the trial court was statutorily required to impose separate
sentences for two of the most serious firearm specifications * * * related to * * * murder
and felonious assault.’ ” Howard at ¶ 93, quoting State v. Rosales, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 27117, 2018-Ohio-197, ¶ 28.
{¶ 9} We also noted that “ ‘[w]hen firearm specifications under both R.C. 2941.145
and R.C. 2941.146 accompany the same offense and are both found true, a court must
impose a 3-year term under R.C. 2929.14[(B)(1)(a)(ii)] and a 5-year term under R.C.
2929.14[(B)(1)(c)].’ ” Id. at ¶ 96, quoting State v. Hudson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
23328, 2010-Ohio-1622, ¶ 8, fn. 8. Furthermore, the “imposition of a five-year sentence
on a specification for discharging a firearm from a vehicle is mandatory under R.C.
2941.146, and thus does not fulfill R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g)’s requirements as to convictions
for specifications under R.C. 2929.145.” Id. at ¶ 94.
{¶ 10} Based on the foregoing principles, this court found no issue with the trial
court’s merging all the five-year firearm specifications together and sentencing Howard
to both a three- and five-year firearm specification. There was an issue, however, with
the trial court’s not sentencing Howard to an additional three-year firearm specification as
required by the exception in R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g). Accordingly, we found the trial court
erred as a matter of law by merging the three-year firearm specification attached to the
-6-
felonious assault on Coleman with the three-year firearm specification attached to the
murder of Hall. In light of this error, we reversed the judgment of the trial court only as
to the merger of the three-year firearm specifications and remanded the matter for the
trial court to impose an additional three-year firearm specification as required by R.C.
2929.14(B)(1)(g). The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all other respects. See
Howard, 156 N.E.3d 433, 2020-Ohio-3819.
{¶ 11} On June 16, 2021, the trial court held a resentencing hearing and
resentenced Howard to an additional three-year firearm specification as ordered by this
court. The trial court ordered the additional three-year firearm specification to be served
consecutively to the other two firearm specifications and prior and consecutively to the
prison terms imposed for Howard’s offenses. Therefore, Howard was resentenced to a
total, aggregate term of 34 years to life in prison (3 years + 3 years + 5 years + 15 years
to life + 8 years).
{¶ 12} Howard filed a timely appeal from the trial court’s resentencing judgment.
As previously discussed, Howard’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the
absence of any meritorious claims to present on appeal. Howard’s Anders brief raises
one potential assignment of error for review.
Standard of Review
{¶ 13} Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, we are
charged with conducting an independent review of the record “to determine whether any
issues involving potentially reversible error that are raised by appellate counsel or by a
defendant in his pro se brief are ‘wholly frivolous.’ ” State v. Marbury, 2d Dist.
-7-
Montgomery No. 19226, 2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 7, quoting Anders at 744. An issue is wholly
frivolous if it lacks arguable merit, meaning that “on the facts and law involved, no
responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal.” Id. at ¶ 8, citing
State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. “An issue does
not lack arguable merit merely because the prosecution can be expected to present a
strong argument in reply, or because it is uncertain whether a defendant will ultimately
prevail on that issue on appeal.” Id. If we find that any issue—whether presented by
appellate counsel, presented by the appellant, or found through an independent
analysis—is not wholly frivolous, we must appoint different appellate counsel to represent
the appellant. Id. at ¶ 7, citing Pullen.
Potential Assignment of Error
{¶ 14} As a potential assignment of error, Howard’s appellate counsel suggests
that the trial court erred by ordering the additional three-year firearm specification to be
served consecutively to the other firearm specifications and prison terms without making
the consecutive-sentence findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). This claim, however,
lacks arguable merit.
{¶ 15} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) applies to “multiple prison terms [that] are imposed on
an offender for convictions of multiple offenses[.]” (Emphasis added.) R.C.
2929.14(C)(4). “A [firearm] specification is a sentencing enhancement, not a separate
criminal offense.” State v. Nitsche, 2016-Ohio-3170, 66 N.E.3d 135, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.);
State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398, 2011-Ohio-765, 945 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 16-17. “Thus, ‘[b]y
its own terms, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) does not apply to penalty enhancing specifications.’ ”
-8-
Nitsche at ¶ 55, quoting State v. James, 2015-Ohio-4987, 53 N.E.3d 770, ¶ 47 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 16} Furthermore, “the trial court was mandated by R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) to
impose sentences ‘for each of the two most serious specifications of which the offender
is convicted,’ i.e., two of the three-year firearm specifications, consecutively.” (Citations
omitted.) Id. at ¶ 54. “[A]lthough the General Assembly did not include the word
‘consecutive’ in R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g), it did, in fact, create an exception to the general
rule that a trial court may not impose multiple firearm specifications for crimes committed
as part of the same transaction.” State v. Young, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102202, 2015-
Ohio-2862, ¶ 9. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals has explained that:
The mandatory language of the statute (‘the court shall impose’) also
indicates the General Assembly’s intention that the defendant serve
multiple sentences for firearm specifications associated with the
enumerated crimes * * *. Had the legislature intended a per se rule that
sentences for firearm specifications must be served concurrent with one
another, it could have stated as much. Or, the legislature could have
chosen not to codify R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g), which serves as an exception
to the rule that multiple firearm specifications must be merged for purposes
of sentencing when the predicate offenses were committed as a single
criminal transaction.
(Emphasis sic.) State v. Israel, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2011-11-115, 2012-Ohio-4876,
¶ 73. Accord State v. Vanderhorst, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97242, 2013-Ohio-1785,
¶ 10-11; Young at ¶ 9; Nitsche at ¶ 53.
{¶ 17} “Because R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) requires the imposition of consecutive
-9-
sentences for the firearm specifications, the trial court was not required to make R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) findings before imposing multiple, consecutive three-year sentences on
the firearm specifications[.]” Nitsche at ¶ 54, citing Young at ¶ 10. It is well established
that “the mandatory requirement to order consecutive service of certain specifications
under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) supersedes the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).”
James at ¶ 46, citing Young at ¶ 10. Accord Nitsche at ¶ 54; State v. Urconis, 9th Dist.
Wayne No. 16AP0061, 2017-Ohio-8515, ¶ 10; State v. Jackson, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos.
C-180159, C-180209, 2020-Ohio-80, ¶ 20.
{¶ 18} For the foregoing reasons, Howard’s potential assignment of error lacks
arguable merit for appeal
Outcome: In addition to reviewing Howard’s potential assignment of error, we have
performed our duty under Anders to conduct an independent review of the record. After doing so, we find no basis on which to modify or vacate the narrow resentencing judgment at issue in this appeal. Because there are no issues with arguable merit for Howard to advance on appeal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: