[Cite as State v. Freeman,
2025-Ohio-5204.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250291
TRIAL NO. B-2500365
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
JUDGMENT ENTRY
FREDERICK FREEMAN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal,
allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.
The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the
Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial
court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk:
Enter upon the journal of the court on 11/19/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________
Administrative Judge
[Cite as State v. Freeman, 2025-Ohio-5204.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250291
TRIAL NO. B-2500365
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
OPINION
FREDERICK FREEMAN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 19, 2025
Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman,
Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Michael J. Trapp, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Frederick Freeman appeals from the trial court’s
judgment convicting him, following a bench trial, of strangulation and domestic
violence and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 36 months of imprisonment.
{¶2} In a single assignment of error, Freeman argues that his convictions for
strangulation and domestic violence were allied offenses of similar import and that the
trial court erred in imposing a separate sentence for each offense. Following our review
of the record, we find this argument to be without merit. Because the offenses were
committed separately and were of dissimilar import, we hold that the trial court did
not err in imposing separate sentences and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶3} Freeman was charged in an indictment with strangulation, a fourth-
degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.18(B)(3), and domestic violence, a third-degree
felony in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). The victim of each offense was Freeman’s
nephew, Z.B.
{¶4} The evidence presented at trial established that both Freeman and Z.B.
resided in an apartment belonging to D.H., who is Freeman’s mother and Z.B.’s
grandmother. D.H. testified that she called the police on January 23, 2025, regarding
an altercation between Freeman and Z.B. According to D.H., she heard Freeman kick
in the door to Z.B.’s room. She could not see what occurred in that room, but she
testified that the struggle between the two moved to her bedroom, where she saw Z.B.
lying on the floor while Freeman choked him from above.
{¶5} D.H. testified that she was legally blind, which prohibited her from
seeing smaller, finer objects. However, she was still able to see “bigger things.” She
testified that she saw Freeman’s hands around Z.B.’s throat and Z.B. gasping for air.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
She asked Freeman to stop and tried to pull him off of Z.B. D.H. testified that the fight
ended when Z.B. stabbed Freeman with a pair of scissors. She explained that she
instructed Z.B. to go outside and ask for help. While Z.B. was standing outside, D.H.
saw Freeman approach Z.B. from behind with something in his hands, “like he was
going to stab him.”
{¶6} Z.B. testified that Freeman kicked in the door to his room, jumped on
him, and choked him. He explained that Freeman had both hands around his neck and
applied enough force to affect his ability to breathe. According to Z.B., he was able to
knock Freeman off of him and run to D.H.’s room, where he grabbed a pair of scissors
off her dresser. Z.B. testified that Freeman followed him into D.H.’s room, where they
ended up on the floor between the dresser and bed. Freeman again choked Z.B., who
stabbed Freeman with the scissors that he had grabbed.
{¶7} Z.B. further testified that, after he made his way outside and while he
was talking to a neighbor, he saw Freeman approach him with a screwdriver. Z.B. first
testified that Freeman “aimed at my head and missed,” and then stated that “he hit me
in my back like the other part of my neck, like my neck area.” Z.B. testified that he had
cuts on his thighs and feet and that he suffered injuries to his back and neck area. He
described his neck as “pink” and stated that it was hard to breathe. Two pictures of the
injuries suffered by Z.B. were admitted at trial.
{¶8} Freeman testified in his own defense. He acknowledged kicking in the
door to Z.B.’s room but denied choking Z.B. According to Freeman, Z.B. got in his face
and stabbed him in the head with scissors. In response, he pushed up on Z.B.’s chin.
Freeman also denied taking a screwdriver outside.
{¶9} The trial court found Freeman guilty of both strangulation and domestic
violence. It imposed a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for the offense of
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
strangulation and a sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment for the offense of domestic
violence. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
II. Allied Offenses
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Freeman argues that the trial court erred
by entering separate sentences for the offenses of strangulation and domestic violence
where they were allied offenses of similar import.
{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 2941.25(A), “[w]here 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.”
{¶12} Convictions will not merge and separate sentences may be imposed
under R.C. 2941.25 if the offenses were committed separately, if they were committed
with a separate animus or motivation, or if “the conduct constitutes offenses of
dissimilar import or significance.” State v. Sexton, 2025-Ohio-718, ¶ 45 (1st Dist.); see
R.C. 2941.25(B). Offenses will be considered to be of dissimilar import where “‘the
defendant’s conduct constitutes offenses involving separate victims or if the harm that
results from each offense is separate and identifiable.’” State v. Stites, 2020-Ohio-
4281, ¶ 80 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Ruff,
2015-Ohio-995, paragraph two of the
syllabus.
{¶13} Freeman concedes that, because he failed to object below to the trial
court’s failure to merge these offenses, his argument is subject to plain-error review.
See State v. Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407, ¶ 7; State v. Gill,
2024-Ohio-2792, ¶ 50 (1st
Dist.). To succeed under such review, Freeman must establish that “an error occurred,
that the error was obvious, and that there is a reasonable probability that the error
resulted in prejudice, meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.”
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
(Cleaned up.) Bailey at ¶ 8. These three elements of the plain-error standard are
conjunctive. In other words, “all three must apply to justify an appellate court’s
intervention.” Id. at ¶ 9.
{¶14} Freeman was convicted of strangulation in violation of R.C.
2903.18(B)(3), which provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly . . . [c]ause or create
a substantial risk of physical harm to another by means of strangulation or
suffocation.” He was also convicted of domestic violence in violation of R.C.
2919.25(A), which provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to
cause physical harm to a family or household member.” He contends that these
offenses were subject to merger because there was a single victim of the offenses, the
harm caused by each offense was not separate and identifiable, and the offenses were
committed at the same time and with the same animus.
{¶15} Following our review of the record, we find no plain error in the trial
court’s failure to merge Freeman’s convictions for strangulation and domestic
violence.
{¶16} In State v. Pondexter, 2025-Ohio-2197, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.), the court
similarly considered, under plain-error review, whether the offenses of strangulation
and domestic violence were allied offenses of similar import. In Pondexter, the
defendant “pushed his wife against a fence, placed his hands around her throat, and
began to squeeze.” Id. at ¶ 2. He then drove his wife’s vehicle and “chased her down an
alley in an apparent attempt to run her over with the vehicle.” Id. The court held that,
on these facts, the “crimes were separate acts,” and that “[t]he throat-squeezing
incident by the fence of course supports Pondexter’s strangulation conviction, while
his use of a speeding van to pursue his fleeing-on-foot wife supports the domestic-
violence conviction.” Id. at ¶ 19.
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶17} Like in Pondexter, the evidence presented in the case at bar supported
a determination that Freeman separately committed the offenses of strangulation and
domestic violence. The testimony offered by D.H. and Z.B. established that Freeman
choked Z.B. in Z.B.’s bedroom and then again in D.H.’s bedroom. After that struggle
ended, Z.B. went outside. Freeman followed Z.B. outside and hit him in the back of his
neck with what Z.B. perceived to be a screwdriver. The offense of strangulation was
committed when Freeman choked Z.B. in the two bedrooms. The offense of domestic
violence was separately committed when Freeman followed Z.B. outside and attacked
him with a screwdriver.
{¶18} On this record, the trial court could also have determined that the two
offenses were committed with a dissimilar import because they resulted in harm that
was separate and identifiable. See Stites, 2020-Ohio-4281, at ¶ 80 (1st Dist.). The
strangulation offense caused Z.B. to experience difficulty breathing and suffer
injury/bruising to his neck. The domestic-violence offense resulted in Z.B. suffering
an injury to the back of his neck from a screwdriver. See State v. Heald, 2025-Ohio-
3031, ¶ 72 (11th Dist.) (holding that offenses of strangulation and domestic violence
were of dissimilar import and caused separate and identifiable harm where the offense
of domestic violence resulted in bruising to the victim’s leg and the offense of
strangulation resulted in an injured throat).
{¶19} Because Freeman failed to establish that an error occurred, let alone an
error that was obvious, we find no plain error in the trial court’s failure to merge the
offenses of strangulation and domestic violence. Freeman’s assignment of error is
overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
KINSLEY, P.J., and MOORE, J., concur.
7
