[Cite as State v. Champion , 2012-Ohio-2537.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 24782 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Ca se No. 1997-CR-1509 v. : : BRUCE R. CHAMPION : (Criminal Appeal from : ( Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : :

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 8th day of June, 2012.

. . . . . . . . . . . MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by KIRSTEN A. BRANDT, Atty. Reg. #0070162, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appe llate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee BRUCE R. CHAMPION, #354-713, London Correctional Institution, Post Office Box 69, London, Ohio 43140 Defendant-Appellant, pro se

. . . . . . . . . . . . . HALL, J. {¶ 1} Bruce R. Champion appeals pro se from the trial court’s decision, entry, and 2

 order overruling his motion for resentencing to merge allied offenses of similar import. {¶ 2} Champion advances three assignments of error on appeal. First, he contends the trial court erred in refusing to address the merits of his allied-offense argument and an argument about plain error. S econd, he claims the tr ial court erred in failing to apply the plain-error doctrine. Third, he asserts that the trial court erred in failing to recognize that aggravated robbery and kidnapping ar e allied offenses of similar import. {¶ 3} The record reflects that Champion was convicted and sentenced in March 1998 on two counts of aggravated robbery, two c ounts of kidnapping, one count of aggravated burglary, and firearm specificati ons. This court affirmed on dir ect appeal, rejecting, among other things, an allied-offense argument. See State v. Champion , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 17176, 1999 WL 114973 (March 5, 1999). Champion then unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief. This court again affirmed. See State v. Champion , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18394, 2001 WL 62388 (Jan. 26, 2001). {¶ 4} On May 27, 2011, Champion filed a motion fo r resentencing. He argued that his aggravated robbery and kidnapping offenses were allied offenses of similar import under State v. Johnson , 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061. Therefore, he claimed they were subject to merger at se ntencing. The trial court overruled the motion, holding that Johnson has prospective application and doe s not apply to convictions like Champion’s that became final long ago. The trial court also deni ed reconsideration. {¶ 5} Although Champion raises three a ssignments of error on appeal, he acknowledges that they are related. The essence of his appellate argu ment is that the failure to merge his aggravated robbery and kidnapping c onvictions as allied offe nses of similar import 3

 under Johnson constituted plain error. We reject this argument for at least two reasons. {¶ 6} First, the trial court correctly held that Johnson has only prospective application. In Johnson , the Ohio Supreme Court announced a new test for determining when offenses are allied offenses of similar import that must be merged pursuant to R.C. 2941.25. In
State v. Parson , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24641, 2012-Oh io-730, ¶ 11, this court rejected retroactive application of Johnson to a conviction that became fina l long ago. On the authority of Parson , we hold that the test set forth in Johnson has no applicability to Champion. {¶ 7} Second, Johnson would provide Champion no re lief even if it did apply retroactively. “In determining whether offens es are allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25(A), the question is whether it is possible to commit one offense and commit the other with the same conduct, not whether it is possible to commit one without committing the other.” (Citation omitted.) Johnson at ¶ 48. “If the offenses corre spond to such a degree that the conduct of the defendant constituting commission of one offense constitutes commission of the other, then the offenses are of similar import.” Id. {¶ 8} “If the multiple offenses can be co mmitted by the same conduct, then the court must determine whether the offenses were committed by the same c onduct, i.e., ‘a single act, committed with a single state of mind.’ ” (Citation omitted.) Id. at ¶ 49. “If the answer to both questions is yes, then the offenses are allied offenses of similar import and will be merged.” Id. at ¶ 50. “Conversely, if the court deter mines that the commission of one offense will never result in the commission of the other, or if the offenses are committed separately, or if the defendant has a separate animus for each offense, then, according to R.C. 2941.25(B), the offenses will not merge .” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 51. 4

 {¶ 9} When resolving Champion’s direct appeal in 1999, this court determined that his aggravated robbery and kidnapping offenses were not allied offe nses of similar import because he exposed his victims “to a significantly greater risk of harm than was necessary for the accomplishment of the aggr avated robbery offense.” Champion at *4. This fact established the existence of a separate animus. Id. at *3-4; see also State v. Logan , 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 397 N.E.2d 1345 (1979), syllabus (“Where the asportati on or restraint of the victim subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm separate and apart fro m that involved in the underlying crime, there exists a separate an imus as to each offense sufficient to support separate convictions.”); State v. Gilbert , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 08 MA 206, 2012-Ohio-1165, ¶ 47 (“Separate animus also exists if the restraint or movement of the victim substantially increases the risk of harm to the victim.”). Even under Johnson , the existence of a separate animus for each offense allows the imposition of separate sentences. Johnson at ¶ 51. Therefore, the new test articulated in Johnson does not help Champion. {¶ 10} Finally, we reject Champion’s request to hold the present appeal in abeyance until the Ohio Supreme Court decides whether Johnson has retroactive application. Champion contends the United States District Court certified that state-law question to the Ohio Supreme Court in Gaines v. Warden, Mansfield Correctional Inst ., No. S.D.Ohio 1:07cv347, 2011 WL 2884913 (July 18, 2011). We decline to hold the pres ent appeal in abeyance for three reasons. First, it is not clear that the question certifie d by the federal distri ct court would address retroactive application of Johnson

. 1 Second, the Ohio Supreme Court’s on-line docket does

1 In Gaines , the federal district court stated that it would certify the following state-law question to the Ohio Supreme Court:

Whether in this case, which involved a single automobile accident resulting in the death of one victim, Ohio 5

 not indicate that the certified question has been accepted for review. Third, even if the Ohio Supreme Court were to hold that Johnson has retroactive applicati on, that holding would not help Champion for the reason set forth above. {¶ 11} Champion’s assignments of error ar e overruled, and the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pl eas Court is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . FAIN and DONOVAN, JJ., concur.

Copies mailed to: Mathias H. Heck Kirsten A. Brandt Bruce R. Champion Hon. Michael Tucker

Rev.Code §2941.25 could be construed at the time of petitioner’s conviction and direct appeal in 2005 as permitting a “strict textual comparison” of the elements and a finding, in accordance with the First District Court of Appeals’ later decision in State v. Hundley , No. C-060374, 2007 WL 2019804, at *2-3 (Ohio Ct.App. 1 Dist. July 13, 2007) (unpublished), appeal dismissed, 116 Ohio St.3d 1441, 877 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio 2007), that the two aggravated vehicular homicide charges brought against pe titioner under Ohio Rev.Code §§2903.06(A)(1)(a) and 2903.06(A)(2) are dissimilar when compared in the abstract; or whether, conversely, at the time of petitioner’s conviction and direct appeal in 2005, the proper construction of Ohio Rev.Code §2941.25 required a finding that the two offense[s] are of similar import in accordance with the subsequent clarification in Cabrales of the Rance “abstract elements comparison test,” as well as State v. Palmer , 120 Ohio St.3d 322, 898 N.E.2d 960 (Ohi o 2008), and the First District Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Moore , No. C-70421, 2008 WL 3544342 (Ohio Ct.App. 1 Dist. Aug. 15, 2008) (unpublished), appeal dismissed, 120 Ohio St.3d 1490, 900 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio 2009), overruling Hundley

.

Gaines at *9.