Case Title: State v. Von Mincy

Citation: 2010-Ohio-924

Docket Number: 20091439

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-03-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State v. Von Mincy, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-924.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-924 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. VON MINCY, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Von Mincy, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-924.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Underwood, and 
cause remanded. 
(No. 2009-1439 — Submitted February 17, 2010 — Decided March 16, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-080369. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 
State v. Underwood, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2010-Ohio-1, ___ N.E.2d ___, and the 
cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with 
State v. Underwood. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 
 
CUPP, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in State v. 
Underwood. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 2} Respectfully, I dissent. 
{¶ 3} I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissent in State 
v. Underwood, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2010-Ohio-1, ___ N.E.2d ___, that a sentence 
in a criminal case is authorized by law if it is within the statutory range of 
penalties established by the General Assembly.  Id. at ¶ 55 (O’Donnell, J., 
dissenting).  Further, a sentence that is authorized by law, jointly recommended 
by the parties, and imposed by the court is not subject to review even if it includes 
convictions for allied offenses of similar import.  Id. at ¶ 64 (O’Donnell, J., 
dissenting).  According to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), “[a] sentence imposed upon a 
defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized 
by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the 
case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” 
{¶ 4} In this case, Errich Von Mincy pleaded guilty to one count of 
aggravated robbery, two counts of robbery, two counts of kidnapping, one count 
of failure to comply with an order of a police officer, and one count of having 
weapons under disability, along with firearm specifications.  The trial court 
imposed the jointly recommended aggregate 18-year sentence, and the court of 
appeals affirmed.  State v. Von Mincy (June 26, 2009), Hamilton App. No. C-
080369. 
{¶ 5} Notwithstanding Von Mincy’s agreement to an 18-year sentence, 
the majority reverses on the basis that the trial court’s failure to merge allied 
offenses is appealable.  This conclusion is contrary to the plain language of R.C. 
2953.08(D)(1). 
{¶ 6} Moreover, the remedy of merging the sentences for allied offenses 
is patently unfair to the state because it only reduces the agreed upon penalty and 
fails to address the negotiated plea.  Because the state is deprived of the sentence 
that it recommended, it ought to have the opportunity to renegotiate the plea 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
agreement.  Both the plea and the sentence ought to be vacated in fairness to both 
parties. 
{¶ 7} The legislature never intended the allied-offenses statute, R.C. 
2941.25(A), to apply as an exception to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), which bars the 
appeal of a sentence that is authorized by law, jointly recommended by the 
parties, and imposed by the trial court.  Nor did it intend a criminal defendant to 
gain the benefit of a reduction in charges while also avoiding the agreed-upon 
penalty.  This result is illogical. 
{¶ 8} Because the majority has misinterpreted the manifest purpose of 
the legislature in enacting R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), I urge the General Assembly to 
clarify its intent, to avoid the forthcoming appeals that will inevitably be 
generated by the court’s decisions in this case and in Underwood. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Judith 
Anton Lapp, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
Errich Von Mincy, pro se. 
______________________