[Cite as State v. Herzner , 2021-Ohio-4244.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE D ISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

JUSTIN W. HERZNER, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2021-02-005

O P I N I O N

12/6/2021

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT C OUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2020CR0360

Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nich olas Horton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert F. Benintendi, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

BYRNE, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Justin W. Herzner, appeals from his convic tion in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas with respect to the court 's failure to merge his

convictions for domestic violence and abduction as allied offen ses. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.Clermont CA2021-02-005

- 2 - I. Facts {¶ 2} Herzner and the victim, Cheyanne Vollmer, were engaged and had four children in common. Between the late evening of April 27 and e arly morning of April 28, 2020, police were dispatched to a residence in Goshen Township to respond to a verbal

altercation between Herzner and Vollmer. After the officers de parted, Vollmer went to sleep. She awoke to Herzner having wrapped a nylon rope around her neck. Vollmer struggled to free herself as Herzner tightened the rope. Vollm er was eventually able to slide the rope off of her neck and into her mouth. This caused lacer ations to her cheeks. When Herzner finally let go, Vollmer attempted to exit the room, but was stopped by Herzner, who grabbed her, threw her to the floor, and told her he had a knif e. Herzner shut the door, leaving Vollmer alone in a room with boarded-up windows and no escape other than through the hall where Herzner waited, armed with a knife. {¶ 3} Thirty minutes later, an irate Herzner reentered the room where Vollmer was trapped. Shouting that she had lied to him, he climbed on top of her, punched her in the face repeatedly, and choked her with his hands to the point tha t she lost consciousness. When Vollmer awoke, she was coughing up her own blood. At some point she was finally able to flee and went to the Goshen Township Police Department to report the incident.

Herzner was arrested soon thereafter.

II. Procedural Posture {¶ 4} On June 2, 2020, a Clermont County Grand Jury indicted Herzner on one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and one count of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(3). Herzner initially pleaded not guilty, but after negotiation with the state, and in exchange for the state amending the kidn apping count to abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2), Herzner entered a plea of g uilty to the amended charges. At the plea hearing the State pr ovided a factual basis for the plea as follows:Clermont CA2021-02-005

- 3 - PROSECUTOR: Specifically, on or about the 27th or 28th day of April 2020, in Clermont County, Ohio, defendant and the victim got into an altercation which required the police to respond. No arrests were made at the first incident. Then approximately an hour after the police responded, the defendant again hit and then choked the victim. Defendant would not let the victim leave, and in doing so, wrapped a rope around her neck and threatened her. The victim was left with substantial bruising and visible injuries as a re sult. Defendant while incarcerated had another inmate and himself call victim's family in an attempt to get them not to come to c ourt. Defendant and victim had lived together and had four children in common. Defendant has multiple prior domestic violence convictions. {¶ 5} Herzner did not object to the state's description of the facts. The court advised Herzner of his trial rights, and he agreed to waive them and ac cept the plea agreement. The court then found Herzner's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, accepted it, ordered a presentence investigation ("PSI"), and set the matter for sentencing. {¶ 6} A week after the plea hearing, Herzner submitted a sentencing m emorandum in support of merger, in which he argued that his conduct was a ll committed as a single act in a continuing course of conduct. {¶ 7} At the sentencing hearing, the court considered Herzner's motio n for merger of the offenses. The judge and attorneys spoke at length about the factual basis set forth by the state at the preceding hearing, the facts of the case as set forth in the police report and PSI, and whether the court should grant or deny the motion for merger. Eventually, the trial court permitted Vollmer to provide clarification as to th e timeline of events through both sworn and unsworn testimony. After considering the evidence an d the law, the court denied the merger motion. The judge asked Herzner whether he would li ke to withdraw his guilty plea in light of that finding, and after conferring with his at torney during a recess, Herzner

declined to do so. The court sentenced Herzner to 30 months of incarceration on theClermont CA2021-02-005

- 4 - domestic violence count and 33 months of incarceration on the a bduction count, to be served consecutively. Herzner now appeals. III. Law and Analysis {¶ 8} On appeal, Herzner raises one assignment of error: {¶ 9} DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABDUCTION ARE ALLIED OFFENSES OF

SIMILAR IMPORT UNDER R .C. 2941.25 AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO MERG ER. {¶ 10} Herzner argues that his two convictions should have merged as a llied offenses. The United States and Ohio Constitutions prohibit th e government from subjecting a person to multiple punishments for the same offens e. State v. Ruff , 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995, ¶ 10, citing Fifth Amendment to the U .S. Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10. This protection has been codified in Ohio's alliedoffenses statute, which prohibits the imposition of multiple pu nishments for the same

criminal conduct. State v. Conrad , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-01-016, 2018-Ohio-5291, ¶ 43. The allied offense statute 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 defendant's 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 th e defendant may be convicted of all of them. R.C. 2941.25. The prosecution selects the charges that may be brought against a defendant based upon the defendant's criminal conduct. This sa me conduct may support convictions for multiple offenses, requiring the judge to deter mine, based on the facts of the case, whether the conduct can be "merged," or construed to cons titute a single offense.

Ruff at ¶ 13. An appellate court reviews de novo the trial court's R.C. 2941.25 mergerClermont CA2021-02-005

- 5 - determination. State v. Clowers , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2019-01-009, 2019-Ohio-4629, ¶ 32. {¶ 11} In determining whether offenses are "allied" and should be merg ed for sentencing, courts are instructed to consider three separate fa ctors: the conduct, the animus, and the import. State v. Singh , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-09-056, 2021-Ohio2158, ¶ 60, citing Ruff at syllabus. "[A] defendant may be convicted of multiple offe nses arising out of an episode of criminal conduct if 1) the offense s did not have the same import, i.e., the offenses created separate, identifiable harms; 2) the offenses were committed separately; or 3) there was a separate animus or motivation in committing the offenses."

Clowers at ¶ 30, citing Ruff at ¶ 25. Accordingly, the critical inquiry for an analysis und er R.C. 2941.25 is the conduct of the defendant. Id. {¶ 12} Herzner pleaded guilty to one count of domestic violence and on e count of abduction. Under Ohio's domestic violence law, "No person shal l knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member. " R.C. 2919.25(A). Per the statute, a "family or household member" means "[t]he natura l parent of any child of whom the offender is the other natural parent or is the putativ e other natural parent." R.C. 2919.25(F)(1)(b). At the time of the incident, Herzner and Vol lmer, who were engaged to be married, shared four biological children. Herzner choked an d hit Vollmer repeatedly, including to the point where she lost consciousness. Herzner c aused Vollmer physical harm. Herzner unquestionably committed domestic violence. {¶ 13} Abduction is defined as, without privilege, "[b]y force or thre at, restrain[ing] the liberty of another person under circumstances that create a risk of physical harm to the victim or plac[ing] the other person in fear." R.C. 2905.02(A) (2). Herzner choked Vollmer with a nylon rope, grabbed her and threw her to the floor when she tried to flee the room, threatened her with a knife, and left her alone in a room with boarded-up windows with noClermont CA2021-02-005

- 6 - escape other than through a hallway where he waited with a knif e. Herzner unquestionably

abducted Vollmer. {¶ 14} The issue before us is whether Herzner's acts of domestic viole nce and abduction should merge into a single offense for purposes of se ntencing. It is the appellant's burden to establish entitlement to R.C.2941.25 prot ection against multiple punishments. State v. Lewis , 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2008-10-045, 2012-Ohio-885, ¶ 14. {¶ 15} Before analyzing the conduct, animus, and import of the offense s, we pause to address two issues. First, we note that Herzner argues that the facts described by the prosecutor at the plea hearing should control whether the offen ses should merge. He asserts that the prosecutor's statement of the facts, if consid ered alone, was insufficient for the court to find the offenses were separate. We have previous ly rejected this argument.

Id. at ¶ 21. "In considering the brief statement of facts read in to the record at the plea hearing, we are mindful that a guilty plea is a complete admiss ion of the defendant's guilt, and the merger of offenses is a sentencing issue, not a plea is sue." Id. at ¶ 20. In Lewis , we explained that "[w]e need not rely solely on the statement o f facts as laid out at the plea hearing as there were sufficient facts in the record to find" t he offenses should not merge.

Id. In that case we found that the trial court did not err in fin ding that two offenses did not merge when the court relied on facts offered by the state at th e plea hearing and also on facts described in the pre-sentence investigation report that w ere read aloud at the sentencing hearing. Id. at ¶ 17-21. The defendant in that case was given the opportuni ty to correct the facts read from the pre-sentence investigation r eport and he declined to do

so. Id. at ¶ 17. {¶ 16} Likewise, here, at the sentencing hearing the trial court revie wed the facts described by the state at the plea hearing, Vollmer's testimony at the sentencing hearing,

and other information in the record before it decided that Herz ner's abduction and domesticClermont CA2021-02-005

- 7 - violence offenses should not merge. The trial court then gave Herzner the opportunity to withdraw his plea and after conferring with his counsel during a recess, Herzner decided not to do so. Therefore, we proceed with our analysis using th e facts as revealed by the

entire record. State v. Washington , 137 Ohio St. 3d 427, 2013-Ohio-4982, ¶ 20, 24 ("We hold that when deciding whether to merge multiple offenses at s entencing pursuant to R.C. 2941.25, a court must review the entire record, including argum ents and information presented at the sentencing hearing, to determine whether the o ffenses were committed separately or with a separate animus."). {¶ 17} Second, we note that the trial court indicated at the sentencin g hearing that

Herzner's acts towards Vollmer before he left the bedroom could have been charged as either abduction or domestic violence, and likewise Herzner's a cts towards Vollmer after he returned to the bedroom could have been charged as either abduc tion or domestic violence. However, the state only charged Herzner with one count of kidna pping (later pleaded down to abduction) and one count of domestic violence, rather than t wo counts of each. The trial court appears to have concluded that Herzner's acts before leav ing the bedroom constituted the offense of abduction, and Herzner's acts after returning to the bedroom constituted the

offense of domestic violence. We will analyze this case in the same manner. A. Import {¶ 18} "The evidence at trial or during a plea or sentencing hearing w ill reveal whether the offenses have similar import." Ruff at ¶ 26. If multiple offenses were perpetrated against a single victim, the defendant may be convi cted of the different offenses if the victim suffers separate and identifiable harm from the d ifferent offenses. Clowers , 2019-Ohio-4629 at ¶ 30, citing Ruff at ¶ 26. Based on the evidence presented at the plea and sentencing hearings, we find that Herzner's domestic violen ce and abduction offenses were of dissimilar import.Clermont CA2021-02-005

- 8 - {¶ 19} The harms from Herzner's abduction and domestic violence offens es were separate and identifiable. The harm from Herzner's abduction o f Vollmer was fear. See R.C. 2905.02(A)(2). When Herzner grabbed Vollmer, threw her ba ck into the room as she tried to escape, and threatened her with a knife, he placed her in fear. The context of her confinement, coming immediately after he choked her with a rope , served only to heighten Vollmer's fear for her life. Conversely, the harm from Herzner 's domestic violence offense was severe physical injury to Vollmer, which resulted in heavy bruising, scarring, loss of consciousness, and blood loss. The harm from the offenses was therefore of dissimilar import, meaning the offenses should not merge. Clowers at ¶ 30, citing Ruff at ¶ 25.

B. Harms {¶ 20} We have previously held that if one offense is completed before the other begins, then "the offenses are considered separately for senten cing purposes even though the two offenses may have been committed in close proximity in time." Clowers at ¶ 30, citing State v. Fields , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-03-025, 2015-Ohio-1345, ¶ 18. The

facts of this case indicate that the abduction and domestic vio lence offenses were committed separately, and that the abduction was not incidental to the domestic violence as Herzner argues. Although the prosecutor's statement of fact s offered at the plea hearing was not as clear as it could have been on this point, we nevert heless find, based on all of the facts available in the record, including Vollmer's testimon y at the sentencing hearing, a sufficient basis to identify the two offenses as separate. {¶ 21} When Herzner grabbed Vollmer as she tried to leave, threw her b ack in the room, threatened her with a knife, and shut her into the room w ith no escape, the abduction offense was complete. In restraining her liberty in this manne r, particularly after having just choked her with a rope, Herzner created a risk of physical harm to Vollmer or placed her in fear. Further, Herzner's second attack on Vollmer, separated a s it was by thirty minutesClermont CA2021-02-005

- 9 - from the initial incident, constitutes a wholly separate offens e. Even if Herzner's choking Vollmer with rope is viewed as incidental to the abduction, his punching and choking her with his hands was completely separate in time from the acts wh ich constituted the abduction. The offenses thus should not merge. Clowers at ¶ 30, citing Ruff at ¶ 25.

C. Animus {¶ 22} "Animus" is defined for purposes of R.C. 2941.25(B) as "purpose " or "more properly, immediate motive." State v. Lung , 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-03-004, 2012- Ohio-5352, ¶ 12. "If the defendant acted with the same purpose , intent, or motive in both instances, the animus is identical for both offenses." Id. , citing Lewis , 2012-Ohio-885 at ¶ 13. Animus is often difficult to prove directly but must be in ferred from the surrounding

circumstances. Id. , citing State v. Logan , 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 (1979). Herzner argues

that the motive behind both the domestic violence and abduction offenses was identical, namely, to physically harm Vollmer. While it is true that this was a common result, the surrounding circumstances bear out a separate animus for each o ffense. {¶ 23} The separate animus is principally demonstrated by the gap in t ime between the completion of the abduction and the completion of the domes tic violence offense as

detailed above. See, e.g., State v. Painter , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-03-022, 2014- Ohio-5011, ¶ 22. Herzner left the room where he was confining Vollmer and return ed thirty minutes later, shouting about how she had lied to him. This wa s not a continuous chain of

events—a "domestic violence incident of 30-minutes duration" as Herzner classifies it—but rather an attack and confinement followed by a separate attack. The gap in time between

Herzner's initial attack and confinement of Vollmer and his fin al attack upon her suggests a different animus and means the offenses should not merge. Clowers at ¶ 30, citing Ruff at ¶ 25.Clermont CA2021-02-005

- 10 - IV. Conclusion {¶ 24} After reviewing the record, we find that the court did not err in determining that Herzner failed to carry his burden to demonstrate that his conv ictions for domestic violence and abduction were allied offenses that should be merged under R.C. 2941.25. The record demonstrates that each offense involved separate conduct, a sep arate animus, and a separate harm. {¶ 25} Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 26} Judgment affirmed.

PIPER, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.