Case Title: State v. Johnson

Citation: 2008-Ohio-69

Docket Number: 20062154

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State v. Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 541, 2008-Ohio-69.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. JOHNSON, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 541, 2008-Ohio-69.] 
Criminal law — R.C. 2929.13(F) — Imposition of sentence — Discretion of trial 
court. 
(No. 2006-2154 – Submitted October 10, 2007 – Decided January 16, 2008.) 
Certified by the Court of Appeals for Butler County,  
No. CA2005-10-422, 2006-Ohio-5195. 
__________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J. 
{¶ 1} Kevin Johnson appeals from a decision of the Butler County Court 
of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s imposition of consecutive life 
sentences for his four rape convictions upon its determination that R.C. 
2929.13(F) required that mandatory prison terms for certain serious offenses, 
including rape, be imposed consecutively.  We hold that R.C. 2929.13(F) does not 
require a sentencing court to impose consecutive sentences for multiple rape 
convictions.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Twelfth District, vacate 
Johnson’s sentence, and remand this cause for resentencing. 
{¶ 2} A jury found Johnson guilty of four counts of rape, each with a 
finding that the victim was under ten years old.  The trial court sentenced Johnson 
to a mandatory term of life imprisonment for each of his four convictions, 
pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(B) and 2929.13(F)(2), and ordered him to serve his 
sentences consecutively, finding that “[s]ince the conviction on each count 
requires a mandatory sentence, pursuant to ORC 2929.13(F)(2), the Court is 
required by law to run each sentence consecutively.” 
{¶ 3} The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s 
judgment, determining that R.C. 2929.13(F) implicitly required the imposition of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
consecutive prison terms for multiple rape convictions.  The Twelfth District 
stated:  “Anything less would diminish the intended effect of the mandatory 
sentences, and would render such sentences not truly mandatory.  We do not 
interpret the language of R.C. 2929.13(F) to allow for the possibility of a ‘volume 
discount,’ where a defendant essentially serves one term for the commission of 
multiple, serious crimes for which mandatory prison terms are required.”  State v. 
Johnson, Butler App.  No. CA2005-10-422, 2006-Ohio-5195, ¶ 68. 
{¶ 4} The Twelfth District certified that its decision was in conflict with 
the decision of the Third District Court of Appeals in State v. Sharp, Allen App. 
No. 1-02-06, 2002-Ohio-2343.  In Sharp, the court had determined that R.C. 
2929.13(F)(3) did not require the imposition of consecutive prison terms for 
multiple convictions for gross sexual imposition where the victim was under the 
age of 13.  Id. at ¶ 26.  Nonetheless, the Third District upheld the trial court’s 
imposition of consecutive sentences because the court, pursuant to R.C. 
2929.14(E)(4), made abundant findings to support the consecutive terms.  Id.1   
{¶ 5} Thus, the decisions of the Twelfth and Third districts interpreting 
R.C. 2929.13(F) diverge.  While the Twelfth District’s decision in Johnson holds 
that R.C. 2929.13(F) requires consecutive sentences for multiple convictions, the 
Third District’s decision in Sharp determines that it does not. 
{¶ 6} Upon granting Johnson’s motion to certify a conflict, the Twelfth 
District certified the following issue to this court:  “[W]hether a trial court is 
required to impose consecutive sentences when a defendant is convicted of 
multiple counts of an offense listed in R.C. 2929.13(F).”   We accepted the 
certified question. 
                                                          
 
1.  We note that the Third District’s decision in Sharp predates this court’s decision in State v. 
Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, in which we held that the portions of 
R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) requiring judicial findings for consecutive terms are unconstitutional.  Foster, 
paragraph three of the syllabus. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 7} Johnson acknowledges that R.C. 2929.13(F) requires a court to 
impose mandatory prison terms for convictions for any of the offenses 
enumerated in the statute.  However, he contends that nothing in the plain 
language of the statute requires a court to impose those mandatory prison terms 
consecutively when an offender is convicted of multiple offenses.  Johnson asserts 
that when the legislature intends to require sentencing courts to impose mandatory 
sentences consecutively, it explicitly states its intention.  He cites R.C. 
2921.331(D), which provides that an offender convicted of failure to comply with 
an order or signal of a police officer “shall serve the prison term [for that 
conviction] consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory prison term 
imposed upon the offender.” 
{¶ 8} In contrast, the state asserts that because R.C. 2929.13(F) provides 
that “the court shall impose a prison term or terms” and limits the court’s ability 
to reduce the offender’s sentence under certain sections of the Revised Code, the 
statute requires a sentencing court to impose the terms for multiple convictions 
consecutively.  The state reasons that permitting an offender to serve the 
mandatory sentences for multiple convictions concurrently would impermissibly 
reduce the sentences and render them not truly mandatory.  There appears to be 
some confusion in the courts below and between the parties to this case regarding 
the difference between mandatory and consecutive sentences as well as a 
sentencing court’s obligation to impose those sentences.  The provisions of R.C. 
2929.13(F), 2929.14(D) and (E), and 2929.41(B) serve to clarify this issue. 
{¶ 9} R.C. 2929.13(F) addresses mandatory prison terms and lists 
offenses for which a sentencing court is obligated to impose a prison term.  The 
version in effect on the date of the offense provided:  “Notwithstanding divisions 
(A) to (E) of this section, the court shall impose a prison term or terms under 
sections 2929.02 to 2929.06, section 2929.14, or section 2971.03 of the Revised 
Code and except as specifically provided in section 2929.20 [judicial release] or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
2967.191 [credit for confinement awaiting trial] of the Revised Code or when 
parole is authorized for the offense under section 2967.13 of the Revised Code 
shall not reduce the terms pursuant to section 2929.20 [judicial release], section 
2967.193 [deduction from sentence for participation in certain programs], or any 
other provision of Chapter 2967. or Chapter 5120. of the Revised Code for any of 
the following offenses:  * * * (2) Any rape, regardless of whether force was 
involved and regardless of the age of the victim * * * .”  Sub.H.B. No. 52, 
effective June 1, 2004.2 
{¶ 10} In addition to rape, the mandatory-sentence provision of R.C. 
2929.13(F) applies to a number of offenses, including (1) aggravated murder or 
murder; (2) gross sexual imposition or sexual battery; (3) felony offenses of 
involuntary manslaughter, aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular homicide, 
and vehicular manslaughter and several assault charges; (4) certain felony drug 
offenses; (5) certain first- or second-degree felonies committed by offenders 
previously convicted of certain offenses; (6) certain third-degree felonies or an 
attempt to commit a second-degree felony that is an offense of violence and that 
involved an attempt to cause serious physical harm to a person or that resulted in 
serious physical harm to a person if committed by an offender who had previously 
been convicted of certain offenses; (7) felonies committed while the offender had 
a firearm on or about the offender’s person or control; (8) any offense of violence 
that is a felony if the offender wore or carried body armor while committing the 
offense; (9) engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity when the most serious 
offense in the pattern of corrupt activity is a felony of the first degree; (10) any 
violent sex offense or designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense if, in 
relation to that offense, the offender is adjudicated a sexually violent predator; 
(11) carrying a deadly weapon, ammunition, or dangerous ordnance onto the 
                                                          
 
2.  The quoted portion of R.C. 2929.13(F) has since been amended, but the change is not relevant 
to this opinion.  See Am.Sub.H.B. No. 461, effective April 4, 2007. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
grounds of detention facility or mental-health facility if the offender is an officer 
or employee of the department of rehabilitation and correction; (12) aggravated 
vehicular homicide, vehicular homicide, or vehicular manslaughter if the victim is 
a peace officer or an investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and 
investigation; and (13) aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular homicide, or 
vehicular manslaughter if the offender has been convicted of three or more 
offenses involving driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or an 
equivalent offense.  R.C. 2929.13(F)(1) and (3) through (14). 
{¶ 11} R.C. 2929.14 and 2929.41 enumerate additional offenses and 
circumstances under which an offender shall serve his sentences consecutively.  
R.C. 2929.14(E)(1)(a) requires consecutive sentencing for firearm specifications:  
“Subject to division (E)(1)(b) of this section, if a mandatory prison term is 
imposed upon an offender pursuant to division (D)(1)(a) of this section for having 
a firearm on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control while 
committing a felony, if a mandatory prison term is imposed upon an offender 
pursuant to division (D)(1)(c) of this section for committing a felony specified in 
that division by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, or if both types of 
mandatory prison terms are imposed, the offender shall serve any mandatory 
prison term imposed under either division consecutively to any other mandatory 
prison term imposed under either division or under division (D)(1)(d) of this 
section, consecutively to and prior to any other prison term imposed for the 
underlying felony pursuant to division (A), (D)(2), or (D)(3) of this section or any 
other section of the Revised Code, and consecutively to any other prison term or 
mandatory prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the offender.”  
(Emphasis added.)   
{¶ 12} Using similar language, R.C. 2929.14(E)(1)(b) requires the 
imposition of consecutive sentences when an offender receives a mandatory term 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
for wearing or carrying body armor while committing an offense of violence that 
is a felony. 
{¶ 13} Other provisions of R.C. 2929.14 require consecutive sentences 
when an offender is convicted of (1) repeat violent-offender specifications, R.C. 
2929.14(D)(2)(d); (2) discharging a firearm at a police officer, R.C. 
2929.14(E)(1)(c); (3) committing another felony while the offender is an escapee, 
R.C. 2929.14(E)(2); and (4) removing or attempting to remove a firearm from the 
person of a law enforcement officer or theft in which the stolen property is a 
firearm or dangerous ordnance, R.C. 2929.14(E)(3).   
 
{¶ 14} Furthermore, R.C. 2929.41(B)(1) requires a sentencing court to 
impose sentences for misdemeanor violations of R.C. 2907.322 (pandering 
sexually oriented matter involving a minor), 2921.34 (escape), or 2923.131 
(possession of deadly weapon while under detention) “consecutively to any other 
prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment.” 
{¶ 15} “A court’s preeminent concern in construing a statute is the 
legislative intent in enacting a statute.” State ex rel. Van Dyke v. Pub. Emps. 
Retirement Bd., 99 Ohio St.3d 430, 2003-Ohio-4123, 793 N.E.2d 438, ¶ 27.  A 
court shall apply an unambiguous statute in a manner consistent with the plain 
meaning of the statutory language and may not add or delete words.  Portage Cty. 
Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106, 2006-Ohio-954, 846 N.E.2d 478, ¶ 
52. 
{¶ 16} Here, the plain language of R.C. 2929.13(F) requires the 
sentencing court to impose a prison term for certain serious offenses and limits 
that court’s discretion to reduce that term pursuant to R.C. 2929.20 (judicial 
release), R.C. 2967.193 (deduction for participation in certain prison programs), 
or any other provision of R.C. Chapter 2967 or 5120 (pardon, parole, probation), 
except in certain enumerated circumstances.  The word “consecutive” does not 
appear in the statute. 
January Term, 2008 
7 
{¶ 17} As R.C. 2929.14(D) and (E) and 2929.41(B)(1) demonstrate, when 
the legislature intends a sentencing court to impose multiple sentences 
consecutively, it explicitly states that intention.  However, while R.C. 2929.13(F) 
reveals the intent of the legislature that a sentencing court impose mandatory 
prison terms for the enumerated offenses, our review of that statute reveals no 
language demonstrating any legislative intent to require a sentencing court to 
impose those terms consecutively to each other or to any other sentence.  
Therefore, we hold that R.C. 2929.13(F) does not require a sentencing court to 
impose consecutive sentences for multiple rape convictions. 
{¶ 18} Instead, after the sentencing court imposes a separate prison term 
for each conviction, it may exercise its discretion to determine whether 
consecutive sentences are appropriate based upon the particular facts and 
circumstances of the case.  See State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-
1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 9; State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 
N.E.2d 470, paragraph seven of the syllabus, ¶ 100 (“Trial courts have full 
discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer 
required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, 
consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences”). 
{¶ 19} Here, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences for Johnson’s 
four rape convictions based upon its mistaken belief that R.C. 2929.13(F) required 
it to do so, as exemplified by its statement that “the Court is required by law to 
run each sentence consecutively.”  Thus, the court did not exercise its discretion 
to determine whether the facts and circumstances of this case warranted the 
imposition of consecutive prison terms. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Twelfth District, 
vacate Johnson’s sentence, and remand this cause to the trial court for 
resentencing.  That court may exercise its discretion to determine whether the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
particular facts and circumstances of this case warrant the imposition of 
consecutive sentences. 
Judgment reversed,  
sentence vacated, 
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Robin N. Piper, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lina Kirchner 
and Michael A. Oster Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee. 
Christopher P. Frederick, for appellant. 
Charles B. Clovis, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Association of 
Criminal Defense Lawyers. 
______________________