[Cite as State v. Davis , 2022
- Ohio
- 3758.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. SIERRA N. DAVIS Defendant

- Appellant : : : : : : : : : : Appellate Case No. 2022

- CA

- 8 Trial Court Case No s. 22 TRD 175A/B/C (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court )

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 21st day of October , 2022

.

. . . . . . . . . . . ROGER STEFFAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0086330 , Assistant Prosecutor, Champaign County Municipal Court, 205 South Main Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078 Attorney for Plaintiff

- Appellee MARY ADELINE R. LEWIS , Atty. Reg. No. 0099711, 712 North King Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385 Attorney for Defendant

- Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

TUCKER , P. J.- 2

- {¶ 1} Defendant

- appellant Sierra N. Davis appeals from her convictions for driving with a suspended license. Davis claims the evidence did not support the convictions and that the trial court erred by failing to merge the convictions for p urposes of sentencing.
W e conclude that there was competent, credible evidence to support the conviction s, but that the trial court committed plain error by not merging the convictions. The trial court’s judgment s are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

I. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} Davis was charged with one count of driving under a suspended license (court suspension) in violation of Village of Mechani c sburg Codified Ordin ance (“MCO”) 71.28( A ) (1); one count of driving under a suspended license (12

- point suspension) in violation of MCO 71.28(C); and one count of driving under a suspended license (financial responsibility su spension) in violation of MCO 71.31(A). {¶ 3} A jury trial commenced in the Champaign County Municipal Court on March 3, 2022. At trial, Mechani c sburg Police Detective Robert McConnell testified that he had been on duty in a police cruiser on February 15, 202 2. McConnell testified he had been in Urbana and was returning to Mechanicsburg via State Route 4 when he observed Davis driving toward him in a red pickup truck. At that point, neither car was within the jurisdictional boundaries of Mechanicsburg. McCo nnell testified he was familiar with Davis from prior interactions with her, a nd he was aware that Davis’s driver’s license had been suspended ; he was also aware that there was an active warrant for her arrest from another county.- 3

- {¶ 4} McConnell performed a U

- turn and began to travel in the same direction as Davis. After Davis turned onto a different road, McConnell continued on his route and sped back toward her residence. McConnell testified that Davis had a specific route to her residence because it provided the shortest driving distance within the Mechanicsburg jurisdiction. When he arrived at the residence, he observed Davis drive up to the home, park the truck, exit the vehicle’s driver’s door , and run into the garage. McConnell approached the home, exited his vehicle , and walked to the garage. He ordered Davis
to come out of the garage, but she proceeded to run into the residence. Davis was subsequently apprehended. {¶ 5} The S tate's evidence included a copy of Davis 's driving record from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”). The driving record reflected all of the suspensions charged by the State. {¶ 6} The jury found Davis guilty on all charges. The trial court sentenced her to a jail term of 180 day s for the violation of MCO 78.21(C), a jail term of 180 days for the violation of MCO 71.28(A)(1), and a jail term of 30 days for the violation of MC O 71.31(A).
Th e jail terms were ordered to be served concurrently. The trial court also ordered Davis
to pay fines and costs. {¶ 7} Davis appeals. 1

II. Manifest Weight

1 Although it appears Davis has already served the jail term, this appeal is not moot because she sought a stay of execution and has yet to pay the fines and costs. See State v. Smith , 2 d Dist. Montgomery No. 27981, 2019

- Ohio

- 3592, ¶ 9

- 11.- 4

- {¶ 8} We begin with Davis’s second assignment of error , which states: THE CONVICTION FOR DRIVING UNDER SUSPENSION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE {¶ 9} Davis’s argument in this assignment of error centers on her claim that McConnell’s testimony was inherently incredible. {¶ 10} An appellate court's manifest weight review requires the court to “review the record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice warranting reversal and a new trial.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Cosby , 2 d Dist. Montgomery No. 28395, 2020

- Ohio

- 510, ¶ 6. A reversal based upon a manifest weight of the evidence analysis is reserved for the “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id. , citing State v. Hill , 2d Dist. Mon tgom ery No. 25172, 2013

- Ohio

- 717, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Martin , 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶ 11} Because the jury has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses presented at trial, t he credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are matters for the jury , as the trier of fact , to resolve. State v. Morten , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23103, 2010

- Ohio

- 117, ¶ 24. A juror is “ free to believe all, part or none of the testimony of each witness.” (Citations om itted.) Id. Accordingly, we afford great deference to the trier of fact's determination of witness credibility. State v. Redman , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP

- 654, 2011

- Ohio

- 1894, ¶ 26. {¶ 12} We have reviewed the entirety of McConnell’s testimony, the basic fac ts of- 5

-

which are set forth above. McConnell was familiar with Davis due to previous interactions with her. At the time McConnell observed Davis driving the pickup truck , he

was aware that she was operating the truck with a suspended license. McConnell
te stified that he had observed her driving both outside and in side the boundaries of Mechanicsburg. {¶ 13} Despite Davis’s claims to the contrary, we find nothing inherently incredible about that testimony. The jury was free to determine what credit to accord Mc Connell’s trial testimony, and we cannot say it clearly lost its way in accepting his account of the
events. {¶ 14} Accordingly, the second assignment of error is overruled.

III. Allied Offenses {¶ 15} The first assignment of error asserted by Davis provides:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED THE APPELLANT TO ALL OFFENSES WHEN THEY ARE ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT {¶ 16} Davis argues that the three offenses of which she was convicted were allied offenses of similar import. Thus, she challenges the trial court’s failure to merge the convictions for purposes of sentencing

. {¶ 17} The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This protection applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to- 6

-

the United States Constitution. Benton v. Maryland , 395 U.S. 784, 794, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). The Ohi o Constitution, Article I, Section 10, also provides double jeopardy protection to Ohio citizens. State v. Ruff , 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 2015

- Ohio

- 995, 34 N.E.3d 892, ¶ 10. The prohibition against double jeopardy protects citizens from a second prosecution f or the same offense and against multiple punishments for the same offense. Id. {¶ 18} In Ohio, the multiple punishment double jeopardy protection has been codified at R.C. 2941.25: (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 defendant's conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where hi s 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. {¶ 19} In t he past, the Ohio Supreme Court has created several different tests to use when making a decision regarding merger. The most recent test is set forth in Ruff : * * * [W]hen determining whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import within the meani ng of R.C. 2941.25, courts must ask three simple questions when the defendant's conduct supports multiple offenses: (1)- 7

- Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they committed separately? and (3) Were they committed with separate an imus 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. {¶ 20} We begin by noting that Davis did not raise the merger issue in the trial court. Bu t, “when an error in failing to merge allied offenses is obvious, it rises to plain error.” State v. Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015

- Ohio

- 2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 14. As discussed below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error when it faile d to merge the three driving under suspension offenses into one offense. {¶ 21} Based upon the evidence presented at trial, Davis committed the offenses with the same conduct (driving the truck) and with the same animus/motivation (the desire to drive the truck despite having a suspended license)

. Thus , the only issue is whether the offenses are dissimilar in import or significance. The import or significance determination turns on whether the offenses resulted in separate, identifiable harm. The Ruff opinion states the following on this issue : When a defendant’s conduct victimizes more than one person, the harm for each person is se parate and distinct, and therefore, the defendant can be convicted of multiple counts. Also, a defendant’s conduct that constitutes two or more offenses against a single victim can support multiple convictions if the harm that results from each offense is separate and- 8

- identifiable from the harm of the other offense. We therefore hold that two or more offenses of dissimilar import exist within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25(B) when the defendant’s conduct constitutes offenses involving separate victims or if th e harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable. Id. at ¶ 26. {¶ 22} In Davis’s case, the “victims” of each offense were the same, the citizens of Mechanicsburg. Thus, the question is, did Davis’s act of driving under three suspensions

cause separate, identifiable harm. We conclude that it did not , because, irrespective of the reason s for the license suspension s , the harm caused by a person driving with a suspended license is the same

– the operation of a vehicle by a person whose privilege to do so has been temporarily taken away. Given this conclusion, the three driving under suspension offenses were allied offenses of similar import requiring merger. W e further conclude that the trial court committed plain error by not ordering merger of the offenses. Davis’s first assignment of error is sustained. {¶ 23} For the reasons stated, Davis’s second assignment of error is overruled and
her first assignment of error is sustained. The trial court’s judgment s are affirmed in part and reversed in pa rt. The case s are remanded for the trial court to merge the three convictions , allow the Villa ge of Mechanicsburg to elect the offense on which to proceed, and impose an appropriate sentence on that offense

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .- 9

-

DONOVAN , J. and WELBAUM , J. , concur.

Copies sent to: Roger Steffan Mary Adeline R. Lewis Hon. Gil S. Weithman