[Cite as State v. Moore,
2021-Ohio-765.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ERIE COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. E-19-039
Appellee Trial Court No. 2018-CR-103
v.
Jeffrey Moore DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: March 12, 2021
âŠ
Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Kristin R. Palmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Matthew A. Craig, for appellant.
âŠ
ZMUDA, P.J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jeffrey Moore, appeals the judgment of the Erie County Court of
Common Pleas, sentencing him to 17 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of six
counts of having a weapon while under a disability and possession of cocaine.
A. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On April 11, 2018, appellant was indicted on six counts of having weapons
while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (B), felonies of the third
degree, one count of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)(d),
a felony of the second degree, one count of trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(4)(e), a felony of the second degree, and one count of possession
of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(6)(b), a felony of the fourth degree.
These charges stemmed from a search warrant previously executed at appellantâs
residence, resulting in the recovery of narcotics and firearms. On April 26, 2018,
appellant appeared before the trial court for arraignment, at which time he entered a plea
of not guilty to the aforementioned charges, and the matter proceeded through pretrial
discovery and motion practice.
{¶ 3} Following motion practice, the matter proceeded to a four-day jury trial on
May 28, 2019. On the second day of the trial, prior to the presentation of its case-in-
chief, the state filed a motion to amend the indictment to include references to appellantâs
prior felony convictions for felonious assault and several drug offenses. A hearing on the
motion was held at the beginning of the second day of trial.
{¶ 4} Citing untimely disclosure of the motion, appellantâs trial counsel objected
to the amendment of the indictment. Further, appellantâs trial counsel raised the issue of
potential prejudice to appellant that would occur were the state permitted to introduce
evidence of appellantâs prior convictions at trial. In light of the potential prejudice,
2.
appellantâs counsel offered to stipulate to the fact that appellant was under a disability at
the time of the offenses. However, counsel acknowledged that the evidence of
appellantâs prior convictions would be admissible if appellant were to take the stand.
{¶ 5} The state rejected counselâs offer to stipulate to the convictions, and argued
that it should be permitted to introduce evidence of the prior convictions at trial because
such evidence was relevant to the disability element under the six counts of having
weapons while under disability contained in the indictment.
{¶ 6} Upon consideration of the partiesâ arguments, the trial court withheld a final
ruling on the matter while it awaited a decision from appellant as to whether he would
testify. The court alerted the parties that, in the event the evidence of the prior
convictions was introduced, it would âinstruct [the jury] they are not allowed to consider
[the evidence of appellantâs prior convictions] for propensity, only strictly as an element
of the offense.â Further, the court instructed the parties not to introduce any testimony as
to the underlying facts of the prior convictions. Specifically, the trial court stated:
âI donât want to be talking about these offenses as to what happened. Itâs strictly â itâs a
conviction and this conviction applies to this defendant, that should be the limited
testimony in regards to those.â The court then deferred ruling on the stateâs motion to
amend the indictment until it heard evidence from the stateâs witnesses and ascertained
whether appellant would testify.
{¶ 7} Thereafter, the matter proceeded to the stateâs case-in-chief, during which
the state called Perkins Township Police Department detective, Joseph Rotuno, as its sole
3.
witness. Rotuno testified that he obtained a search warrant for appellantâs Erie County
residence on December 12, 2017, and executed said warrant on that same day along with
deputies from the Erie County Sheriffâs Office.
{¶ 8} As he and the other officers were preparing to make entry into appellantâs
residence, Rotuno observed appellant exiting the back of his property and moving toward
his neighborâs property. Thereafter, appellant was detained and placed inside the
residence to observe the officers as they executed the search warrant.
{¶ 9} During his testimony, Rotuno described appellantâs residence as âkind of a
smaller domicile,â and indicated that appellant was the sole occupant of the residence.
Rotuno went on to testify that the residence âwas a very small home, basically a single-
story home, very small.â Rotuno explained that the residence âhas a small portion up
front, like kind of like a little living area. In the center itâs kind of like a kitchen or a
kitchen table type living room and a back room. You can almost touch each other from
the front of the house to the back of the house.â
{¶ 10} Upon entering the residence, Rotuno began to photograph the scene. The
photographs taken by Rotuno, which were entered into evidence as exhibits at trial,
include images of apparently illicit substances, marijuana, prescription medication
prescribed to someone other than appellant, a ledger tracking the inflow of money and the
weight of narcotics leaving the residence, a digital scale, and $7,936 in cash (both
genuine and counterfeit) that was concealed underneath dresser drawers, in the pocket of
a pair of pants, and hidden inside a sock. According to Rotuno, the foregoing items
4.
recovered from appellantâs residence were âindicative of the trafficking in narcotics
through my training for sure.â The apparently illicit substances and prescription pills
were retrieved from the residence and sent to the Bureau of Criminal Investigations for
laboratory testing. The testing confirmed the presence of cocaine, heroin, and oxycodone
within the substances recovered from appellantâs residence.
{¶ 11} In addition to the foregoing items, Rotuno discovered and photographed
three firearms, which were then recovered from the residence. Appellant stipulated to the
operability of all three firearms. According to Rotuno, one of the firearms was found in
the back of the residence in a âlittle storage room or laundry room style room, mudroom
right off the back of the residence.â A second firearm was also discovered in the
mudroom, stowed inside a Crown Royal bag. Finally, the third firearm was recovered
from the pocket of a coat that was found inside a closet. Rotuno then authenticated the
judgment entries from appellantâs previous felony cases, identifying the particular
offenses contained therein. The entries were eventually entered into evidence without
objection from appellantâs defense counsel.
{¶ 12} During a recess taken by the court amid Rotunoâs testimony, appellantâs
defense counsel revisited his objection to the stateâs motion to amend its indictment. At
this point, counsel indicated to the court that he expected appellant to take the stand.
Consequently, counsel asserted that appellantâs prior convictions, âalthough for different
purposes, would be admissible, and I feel that the issue is moot, and my objection to the
Stateâs motion to amend is being withdrawn.â Thereafter, the trial court noted defense
5.
counselâs withdrawal of the objection, and stated that âthe indictment will be amended
according to the motion to amend.â
{¶ 13} At the conclusion of Rotunoâs testimony, the state rested. Appellantâs
counsel moved the court for acquittal under Crim.R. 29, providing no specific argument
in support of the motion. After considering the stateâs response, the trial court denied the
Crim.R. 29 motion. The matter then proceeded to appellantâs case-in-chief, during which
appellant called two witnesses and elected not to testify.
{¶ 14} As his first witness, appellant called his neighbor, James Seibold. Seibold
explained that he was detained by police and held in appellantâs dining room during the
execution of the search warrant on appellantâs residence. As he observed the execution
of the search warrant, Seibold found that it appeared as though âeverything was predone,
you know, like they knew what they were doing ahead of time.â
{¶ 15} As his second and final witness, appellant called his sister, Ernestine
Grove, to the stand. Grove visited appellant on December 12, after the police finished
their search of appellantâs residence. Upon arrival, Grove observed that the residence
was in a disheveled condition. Grove stated that she was âshocked because everything
was turned up, pulled down, turned over. It was a mess.â Grover was then informed that
appellant had been apprehended by police and was being held at the Erie County Jail.
Grove decided to visit appellant at the jail, and subsequently accompanied appellant at his
initial appearance in the present case.
6.
{¶ 16} Following Groveâs testimony, appellant rested. Thereafter, the state
recalled Rotuno as a rebuttal witness. Rotuno testified that appellant was not initially
charged with the drug offenses contained in the indictment, because the state filed the
initial charges prior to receiving the laboratory analysis results confirming the presence
and quantity of illicit substances in the items recovered from appellantâs residence by
police during the execution of the search warrant.
{¶ 17} At the conclusion of Rotunoâs testimony, the matter proceeded to closing
arguments and jury instructions. During its closing argument, the state referenced
appellantâs prior felony convictions in support of the charges of having weapons while
under disability, as follows:
We know, based upon the evidence that was presented, that the
defendant has been previously found guilty of a number of criminal
offenses. Those offenses included felonious assault back in 1986. He also
had a felony level of domestic violence and then he had four drug related
offenses. And Iâm not going to make you listen to me tell you each and
every detail of those prior convictions, but based upon the evidence relative
to those weapons, which we heard Detective Rotuno say in a conversation
he had with the defendant, the defendant said I bought those. Theyâre not
stolen. Recognizing that the disability he has, those prior convictions, Iâm
asking that you conclude that the defendant was unlawfully in possession of
each of those three weapons.
7.
Youâll be asked to determine his guilt or innocence on six counts of
the indictment based upon the possession of those weapons. I believe the
evidence showed that three of those counts relate to his possession that are
related to his prior offenses of violence, the felonious assault and the
domestic violence. The other three counts relate to his unlawful possession
of those same three guns based upon the prior offenses that are felony level
drug related offenses.
{¶ 18} The state returned to the issue of appellantâs prior convictions later in its
closing argument. Earlier in the trial, Rotuno testified that Seibold refused to cooperate
with the investigation because he was afraid of appellant. However, Seibold denied any
such fear of appellant during his testimony. In its closing argument, the state addressed
this discrepancy in the testimony:
We did hear Mr. Seibold say, I never said I was afraid of Jeffrey Moore.
Jeffrey Moore is sitting over there looking at him as he testifies. Jeffrey
Moore, as Mr. Kishman says, is heâs got a litany of criminal history
activity. The charges brought against him say youâre not allowed to have a
gun because you have a prior conviction of felonious assault and you have
a prior conviction for domestic violence and enhanced â with an
enhancement.
{¶ 19} Appellantâs defense counsel promptly interjected with an objection, and the
trial court ordered counsel to approach. Appellantâs counsel argued that the state was
8.
making an improper propensity argument by referencing appellantâs prior convictions.
On the contrary, the state insisted that it was merely addressing an issue that was raised
by appellant in his examination of Seibold, namely whether Seibold was truly afraid of
appellant to such an extent that he refused to cooperate with Rotunoâs investigation.
Following a colloquy with counsel as to the propriety of the stateâs comments regarding
appellantâs prior convictions, the trial court overruled appellantâs objection and found
that appellant opened the door to the stateâs comments by eliciting testimony from
Seibold on the issue of whether Seibold was afraid of appellant. The court then cautioned
the state not to extend its argument beyond a challenge to the veracity of Seiboldâs
testimony that he was not afraid of appellant. The state assured the court that it had no
further comment on appellantâs prior convictions, and did not return to the issue during
the remainder of its closing argument.
{¶ 20} For his part, appellantâs defense counsel referenced the prior offenses
during his closing argument. Defense counsel suggested that the state âfocused, at length
in this case, about the fact that Jeffrey Moore has numerous prior convictions.â He went
on to suggest that âthe reason that [the state] did that is they want you to perceive my
client as a bad guy. And, like I said, heâs got his issues. Heâs done bad things in the past,
but that does not mean that he is not entitled to the same legal protections and the same
considerations as anyone else.â Later in his closing argument, defense counsel returned
to the issue of appellantâs prior convictions, and stated: âNow, lastly, the issue of guns.
Again, youâve heard a lot about my clientâs involvement with the Court system. Heâs
9.
committed crimes in the past. Heâs got a record, but what you did not hear was that my
client ever had a trial before. When Mr. Moore does something wrong, he takes
responsibility for it.â
{¶ 21} Following closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury, and
included an instruction regarding appellantâs prior convictions. Specifically, the court
instructed the jury that appellant was convicted of felonious assault, domestic violence,
three counts of trafficking in cocaine, possession of crack cocaine, possession of cocaine,
preparation of marijuana for sale, and possession of drugs. The court explained that
â[t]he evidence was received because a prior conviction is an element of the offense of
Having Weapons While Under a Disability. It is not received, and you may not consider
it, to prove the character of the defendant in order to show that he acted in conformity or
in accordance with that character.â
{¶ 22} Eventually, the jury retired to deliberate. Ultimately, the jury found
appellant guilty of six counts of having weapons while under disability and possession of
cocaine, but not guilty of trafficking in cocaine or possession of heroin. Thereafter, the
matter was continued for sentencing.
{¶ 23} At sentencing, the trial court ordered appellant to serve 36 months in prison
on each count of having weapons while under disability, and merged Count 2 with
Count 1, Count 4 with Count 3, and Count 6 with Count 5. The merger of these offenses
was the product of the courtâs recognition that the same firearm was the subject of
Counts 1 and 2 (a Taurus .25 caliber firearm), Counts 3 and 4 (a Hi-Point .40 caliber
10.
firearm), and Counts 6 and 6 (a Johnson Arms .22 caliber firearm). Appellantâs defense
counsel insisted that all of the convictions for having weapons while under disability
should merge because all of the firearms âwere found within one location, that being Mr.
Mooreâs home.â The trial court rejected this argument, and proceeded to order appellant
to serve eight years in prison for possession of cocaine. The court then ordered the
individual sentences to be served consecutive to one another, for a total of 17 years in
prison, eight of which are mandatory. Appellantâs timely appeal followed.
B. Assignments of Error
{¶ 24} On appeal, appellant assigns the following errors for our review:
I. The trial court erred when it permitted the state to introduce
defendant/appellantâs full criminal record solely to prove
defendant/appellantâs legal disability to possess firearms when
defendant/appellant had offered to stipulate to the disability.
II. The trial court erred by not merging all of the weapons under
disability charges for the purpose of sentencing.
II. Analysis
A. Reference of Prior Convictions at Trial
{¶ 25} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in
allowing the state to introduce evidence of, and comment upon, his prior felony
convictions despite his willingness to stipulate to his firearm disability at trial.
11.
{¶ 26} A trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine the admissibility
of evidence, as long as that discretion is exercised in accordance with the rules of
procedure and evidence. Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271,
569 N.E.2d 1056
(1991). Thus, we will not disturb the trial courtâs decision to admit or exclude evidence
absent an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion connotes an attitude on the part of
the court that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary. Franklin Cty. Sheriff's Dept.
v. State Emp. Relations Bd.,
63 Ohio St.3d 498, 506,
589 N.E.2d 24 (1992).
{¶ 27} Here, appellant contends that the trial court should have excluded evidence
of his prior convictions, which the state used to establish his firearm disability, because
he offered to stipulate to said disability at the outset of the trial. In light of his proposed
stipulation, appellant contends that the evidence of his prior convictions were unfairly
prejudicial and inadmissible under Evid.R. 403(A).
{¶ 28} In support of his argument, appellant cites the Ohio Supreme Courtâs
decision in State v. Creech, 150 Ohio St.3d 540,
2016-Ohio-8440,
84 N.E.3d 981. In that
case, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court
in Old Chief v. United States,
519 U.S. 172,
117 S.Ct. 644,
136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997), and
determined that a trial court abuses its discretion under Evid.R. 403(A) when it does not
allow a defendant to stipulate to his prior convictions for the purposes of establishing the
status element of the offense of having weapons while under disability, and instead
permits the state to introduce the full record of the defendantâs prior offenses. Id. at ¶ 1.
Moreover, the court held that the state may not reject the defendantâs stipulation in favor
12.
of presenting evidence âestablishing the name and natureâ of a defendantâs prior
convictions. Id. at ¶ 36. The court determined that such evidence could be unfairly
prejudicial where it âarouses the juryâs emotional sympathies, evokes a sense of horror,
or appeals to an instinct to punish[.]â Id., citing Oberlin v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr.,
91
Ohio St.3d 169, 172,
743 N.E.2d 890 (2001).
{¶ 29} Like appellant, the defendant in Creech offered to stipulate to his firearm
disabilities on the morning of trial. Id. at ¶ 8. However, the trial court refused to allow
the proposed stipulation after concluding that the state was not required to prove its case
by accepting the stipulation. Id. at ¶ 9. Thereafter, the state addressed the defendantâs
prior convictions for felonious assault and domestic violence, as well as his pending
indictment for aggravated drug trafficking, in its opening and closing statements, during
trial testimony, and in exhibits published to the jury. Id. at ¶ 10. The state elicited
testimony from a detective, who provided details of the defendantâs prior convictions,
and introduced judgment entries that set forth some of the facts underlying the
convictions, including that the defendant had shot at his victim. Id. The Ohio Supreme
Court reviewed this evidence, and determined that it ââwould be arresting enough to lure
a juror into a sequence of bad character reasoning,â especially since it involved another
offense with a gun.â Id. at ¶ 36, quoting Old Chief at 185. Further, the court summarily
concluded that the error in admitting the evidence of the defendantâs prior convictions
was not harmless.
13.
{¶ 30} Relying upon the Ohio Supreme Courtâs decision in Creech, appellant
argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the state to introduce
evidence of his prior felony convictions at trial despite his offer to stipulate to his
disability. According to appellant, the admission of his prior convictions was particularly
prejudicial in light of the similarity between the prior convictions and the drug offenses
with which he was charged in this case. Appellant reasons that this prejudice outweighed
any probative value attributable to the evidence of the prior convictions in light of his
offer to stipulate to the firearm disability. Moreover, appellant asserts that the error was
not harmless with respect to the charge of possession of cocaine.1
{¶ 31} In response, the state argues that the Ohio Supreme Courtâs decision in
Creech is distinguishable from this case. Specifically, the state contends that the
prosecution in Creech presented detailed information about the circumstances
surrounding the defendantâs prior convictions and his pending indictment. By contrast,
the state asserts that the evidence of appellantâs prior felony convictions was limited to
the judgment entries identifying the offenses for which appellant was previously
convicted, and Rotunoâs reading of the same without elaboration as to the facts
underlying those convictions. As such, the state urges that âthere was little difference in
terms of the impact on the jury between the information that would have been contained
1
Appellant concedes that the introduction of evidence of his prior felony convictions was
harmless with respect to his convictions for having weapons while under disability, as he
acknowledges that âthere is no reasonable dispute in the case sub judice that
Defendant/Appellant had firearms.â
14.
in a stipulation, and the minimal facts of Appellantâs prior convictions presented to the
jury.â The state therefore argues that the trial courtâs admission of the evidence of
appellantâs prior felony convictions was not an abuse of discretion, and alternatively
suggests that any error in the admission of such evidence was harmless in light of the
limited nature of the evidence presented.
{¶ 32} In its decision in Creech, the Ohio Supreme Court broadly pronounced that
a trial court abuses its discretion when it allows the state to introduce evidence of a
defendantâs prior felony convictions at trial in order to establish the status element of a
charge of having weapons while under disability, where the defendant offers to stipulate
to the status element prior to the presentation of evidence. Creech at ¶ 1. In this case,
appellant offered to stipulate to the status element, thus rendering the probative value of
the evidence of his prior convictions minimal. Under the holding in Creech, the trial
court should not have permitted the state to refuse appellantâs stipulation in favor of
introducing evidence of appellantâs prior convictions. The minimal probative value of
the evidence of appellantâs prior convictions was substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice to appellant. Consequently, the exclusion of the evidence was
mandatory under Evid.R. 403(A), and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it
at trial.
{¶ 33} Nonetheless, the state argues that the admission of the evidence of
appellantâs prior convictions had no impact on the outcome of the proceedings and was
therefore harmless. Our determination that the trial court abused its discretion in
15.
admitting evidence of appellantâs prior convictions does not automatically result in a
remand for a new trial; if the error is deemed to be harmless, the result of the trial may
stand.
{¶ 34} As to the applicability of harmless error analysis to cases involving the
improper admission of evidence of a defendantâs prior convictions, the United States
Supreme Court in Old Chief concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in
admitting evidence of a defendantâs prior conviction for an offense that was âlikely to
support conviction on some improper ground,â and then remanded the matter to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. Id. at 191,
117 S.Ct. 644. In so doing, the court âimpl[ied] no opinion on the possibility of harmless
error, an issue not passed upon below.â
Id. at 192, fn. 11. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit
issued an order reversing the trial courtâs judgment, and remanding the matter to the trial
court âfor further proceedings in light of the Supreme Courtâs opinion in [Old Chief].
The district court may consider whether any error found by the Supreme Court was
harmless.â U.S. v. Old Chief,
121 F.3d 448, 448 (9th Cir.1997).
{¶ 35} Like the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit has held that â[e]rror under Old
Chief is subject to harmless error analysis.â U.S. v. Colon, 278 Fed.Appx. 588, 593 (6th
Cir.2008), citing U.S. v. Daniel,
134 F.3d 1259, 1262-63 (6th Cir.1998). Further, the
Ohio Supreme Court applied, albeit summarily, harmless error analysis in its decision in
Creech. While the Ohio Supreme Court did not elaborate on the issue of harmless error
in its decision, the Seventh District did engage in a harmless error analysis in its decision
16.
in State v. Creech,
2014-Ohio-4004,
18 N.E.3d 523 (7th Dist.). There, the Seventh
District focused on the conflicting evidence regarding whether the defendant was in
possession of a firearm. One witness testified that the defendant did have a firearm, but
another witness refuted this testimony. Given the conflicting evidence as to the
possession element of the charge of having a weapon while under a disability, the
Seventh District concluded that the erroneous admission of defendantâs prior convictions
was not harmless.
{¶ 36} This court has also applied harmless error in cases involving the erroneous
admission of evidence of prior convictions. See State v. Johnson, 6th Dist. Huron No.
H-92-20, 1993 WL 49800, *2 (Feb. 26, 1993) (finding that evidence of prior convictions
was inadmissible, but stating: âHowever, this court must next determine whether the
erroneous admission of Johnsonâs prior convictions constituted harmless error.â).
{¶ 37} Crim.R. 52(B) summarizes the harmless error doctrine in the context of
criminal cases as follows: âAny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not
affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.â âDuring a harmless-error inquiry, the state
has the burden of proving that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the
defendant.â State v. Morris, 141 Ohio St.3d 399,
2014-Ohio-5052,
24 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 23,
citing State v. Perry,
101 Ohio St.3d 118,
2004-Ohio-297,
802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 15. The
term âsubstantial rightsâ has been interpreted to require that ââthe error must have been
prejudicial.ââ State v. Fisher,
99 Ohio St.3d 127,
2003-Ohio-2761,
789 N.E.2d 222, ¶ 7,
quoting United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 734,
113 S.Ct. 1770,
123 L.Ed.2d 508
17.
(1993). If we determine that the trial courtâs erroneous admission of the evidence of
appellantâs prior convictions did not affect appellantâs substantial rights, then the error
will be deemed harmless and ââshall be discarded.ââ
Id., quoting Crim.R. 52(A).
{¶ 38} In determining whether a defendant was prejudiced by the erroneous
admission of evidence, we focus on âboth the impact that the offending evidence had on
the verdict and the strength of the remaining evidence. Both the errorâs impact on the
verdict and the weight of the remaining evidence must be considered on appellate
review.â Morris at ¶ 25. To conduct this analysis, we âexcise the improper evidence
from the record and then look to the remaining evidence.â Id. at ¶ 29. In State v.
Rahman, 23 Ohio St.3d 146,
492 N.E.2d 401 (1986), the Ohio Supreme Court cautioned
that ââthe cases where imposition of harmless error is appropriate must involve either
overwhelming evidence of guilt or some other indicia that the error did not contribute to
the conviction.ââ Id. at ¶ 151, quoting State v. Ferguson,
5 Ohio St.3d 160, 166,
450
N.E.2d 265 (1983), fn. 5.
{¶ 39} Appellant concedes that the introduction of evidence of his prior felony
convictions was harmless with respect to his convictions for having weapons while under
disability, as he acknowledges that âthere is no reasonable dispute in the case sub judice
that Defendant/Appellant had firearms.â However, appellant contends that the admission
of evidence of his prior convictions was not harmless as to his conviction for possession
of cocaine.
18.
{¶ 40} When we consider the strength of the stateâs case after excluding the
evidence of appellantâs prior convictions, we find that there is overwhelming evidence of
guilt as to the charge of possession of cocaine. Specifically, Rotuno testified that he
recovered illicit substances from appellantâs residence during the execution of the search
warrant on December 12, 2017. The substances were tested by the Bureau of Criminal
Investigations and confirmed to include cocaine. Appellant did not introduce evidence to
refute the presence of cocaine in his residence. Moreover, the evidence introduced at trial
confirms that appellant is the sole occupant of his residence, thus confirming that the
cocaine retrieved therein belonged to appellant. This evidence clearly establishes that
appellant was in possession of cocaine on December 12, 2017, as alleged in the
indictment.
{¶ 41} Unlike in Creech, the evidence in this case does not conflict on a material
element of the offense for which appellant was convicted. Given the overwhelming
evidence of appellantâs possession of cocaine in this case and the limited extent to which
the state referenced appellantâs prior convictions, we find that the trial courtâs erroneous
admission of appellantâs prior convictions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶ 42} Accordingly, appellantâs first assignment of error is not well-taken.
B. Merger of Having Weapons While Under Disability Counts
{¶ 43} In appellantâs second assignment of error, he argues that the trial court
erred in failing to merge all of the counts of having weapons while under disability.
19.
{¶ 44} Whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import is a question of law
that this court reviews de novo. State v. Roberson, 2018-Ohio-1955,
113 N.E.3d 204,
¶ 12 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 45} Ohioâs multiple-count statute, R.C. 2941.25, provides:
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to
constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or
information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant
may be convicted of only one.
(B) Where the defendantâs conduct constitutes two or more offenses
of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses
of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus
as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such
offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.
{¶ 46} In State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114,
2015-Ohio-995,
34 N.E.3d 892, the
Ohio Supreme Court set forth the following three-part test to determine whether a
defendant can be convicted of multiple offenses:
As a practical matter, when determining whether offenses are allied
offenses of similar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25, courts must
ask three questions when defendantâs conduct supports multiple offenses:
(1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they
committed separately? and (3) Were they committed with separate animus
20.
or motivation? An affirmative answer to any of the above will permit
separate convictions. The conduct, the animus, and the import must all be
considered.
Id. at ¶ 31.
{¶ 47} Here, appellant was convicted of having weapons while under disability in
violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), which provides:
(A) Unless relieved from disability under operation of law or legal
process, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm
or dangerous ordnance, if any of the following apply:
âŠ
(2) The person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any
felony offense of violence or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the
commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a
felony offense of violence.
{¶ 48} Here, appellant contends that all six counts of having weapons while under
disability should have merged, since his possession of the three firearms recovered from
his residence was simultaneous and the state failed to elicit evidence as to whether the
firearms were acquired at different times. In support, appellant cites, among other cases,
our decision in State v. Smith, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-1297, 2016-Ohio-7632, wherein
we analogized other appellate courtsâ merger analysis pertaining to having weapons
while under disability to the issue before us, which dealt with multiple counts of forgery.
21.
{¶ 49} In Smith, we approvingly referenced the Fourth Districtâs reasoning in State
v. Pitts, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 99 CA 2675, 2000 WL 1678020 (Nov. 6, 2000), where the
defendant was convicted of eight different counts of having weapons while under
disability for eight different weapons, but seven of those weapons were found in the same
place. Construing R.C. 2923.13, the court concluded that âthe statutory language does
not evince an intent to make each weapon the relevant unit of prosecution rather than the
transaction of having the weapons.â Id. at *13. The court then concluded that âa
defendantâs simultaneous possession of several weapons in one location at one time is a
continuous, indivisible act. ⊠Thus, the simultaneous, undifferentiated possession of
weapons by a person under a disability constitutes only one offense and not separate
offenses for each weapon.â Id. See also State v. King,
2013-Ohio-2021,
992 N.E.2d 491,
¶ 34 (2d Dist.) (â[W]e likewise find that a defendant can commit one offense of having
weapons while under disability by the possession of multiple weapons.â).
{¶ 50} Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, we find that the trial court should
have merged all six counts of having weapons while under disability. All of the counts at
issue in this assignment of error are identical in terms of their elements and factual
predicate, and thus the offenses cannot be described as dissimilar in import or
significance. Further, all three firearms at issue in this case were recovered from the
same location (i.e., appellantâs residence) during the execution of the search warrant.
The state introduced no evidence to establish that these firearms were purchased or
otherwise acquired on separate occasions, and therefore there is no evidence that the
22.
offenses were committed separately. Moreover, there is no evidence that appellant had a
separate animus or motivation underpinning his possession of each of the firearms.
{¶ 51} After applying the merger analysis set forth in the Ohio Supreme Courtâs
decision in Ruff, and in harmony with our sister courtsâ holdings in Pitts and King, we
conclude that appellant committed only one offense of having weapons while under
disability when he simultaneously possessed the three firearms at issue in one location at
one time. Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to merge all six counts at sentencing.
{¶ 52} Accordingly, we find appellantâs second assignment of error well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 53} In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Erie County Court of
Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing
consistent with our determination that all six counts of having weapons while under
disability must be merged as allied offenses of similar import, at which time the state may
elect which of the six counts to proceed upon. The costs of this appeal are assessed to the
state under App.R. 24.
Judgment reversed
and remanded.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
23.
State v. Moore
C.A. No. E-19-039
Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
_______________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohioâs Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Courtâs web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
24.
