Opinion ID: 2690404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: {¶ 5} To decide the scope of R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a),2 or any statute, we begin with its text, “reading words and phrases in context and construing them 2. In its entirety, former R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) provided: Except when an offender commits a violation of section 2903.01 or 2907.02 of the Revised Code and the penalty imposed for the violation is life 2 January Term, 2013 according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 21; R.C. 1.42. If words and phrases “have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise,” we will construe them accordingly. R.C. 1.42. We will attempt to give effect to “every word, phrase, sentence, and part of the statute” and to avoid an interpretation that would “restrict, constrict, qualify, narrow, enlarge, or abridge the General Assembly’s wording.” State ex rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 131 Ohio St.3d 478, 2012-Ohio-1484, 967 N.E.2d 193, ¶ 18. If language in a statute is plain and unambiguous, we will apply it as written. State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308, 2004-Ohio-969, 804 N.E.2d 471, ¶ 13. {¶ 6} R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) lists four conditions—divided into separate clauses and expressed in the disjunctive—in which a sentencing court “shall impose    a ten-year prison term that cannot be reduced pursuant to section imprisonment or commits a violation of section 2903.02 of the Revised Code, if the offender commits a violation of section 2925.03 or 2925.11 of the Revised Code and that section classifies the offender as a major drug offender and requires the imposition of a ten-year prison term on the offender, if the offender commits a felony violation of section 2925.02, 2925.04, 2925.05, 2925.36, 3719.07, 3719.08, 3719.16, 3719.161, 4729.37, or 4729.61, division (C) or (D) of section 3719.172, division (C) of section 4729.51, or division (J) of section 4729.54 of the Revised Code that includes the sale, offer to sell, or possession of a schedule I or II controlled substance, with the exception of marihuana, and the court imposing sentence upon the offender finds that the offender is guilty of a specification of the type described in section 2941.1410 of the Revised Code charging that the offender is a major drug offender, if the court imposing sentence upon an offender for a felony finds that the offender is guilty of corrupt activity with the most serious offense in the pattern of corrupt activity being a felony of the first degree, or if the offender is guilty of an attempted violation of section 2907.02 of the Revised Code and, had the offender completed the violation of section 2907.02 of the Revised Code that was attempted, the offender would have been subject to a sentence of life imprisonment or life imprisonment without parole for the violation of section 2907.02 of the Revised Code, the court shall impose upon the offender for the felony violation a tenyear prison term that cannot be reduced pursuant to section 2929.20 or Chapter 2967. or 5120. of the Revised Code. 2004 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 473, 150 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 5735. 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2929.20 or Chapter 2967. or 5120. of the Revised Code.” At issue here is the third conditional clause, which triggers the mandatory ten-year term “if the court imposing sentence upon an offender for a felony finds that the offender is guilty of corrupt activity with the most serious offense in the pattern of corrupt activity being a felony of the first degree.” The first two clauses pertain to different categories of major drug offender (“MDO”) and require the mandatory prison term if the offender is classified as an MDO by committing certain violations of R.C. 2925.03 or 2925.11, or if the offender is found guilty of an MDO specification in addition to a felony violation of any of the 14 enumerated offenses. The fourth clause (beginning with the disjunctive “or”) applies if an offender is guilty of attempted rape and would have been subject to a sentence of life imprisonment or life imprisonment without parole had the rape been completed. {¶ 7} R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) is unambiguous on the question before us. Willan was found guilty of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32(A)(1), predicated on three first-degree-felony violations of R.C. 1707.44(B). R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) states that “[n]o person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise shall conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.” R.C. 2923.31(I), in turn, defines “[c]orrupt activity” as “engaging in, attempting to engage in, conspiring to engage in, or soliciting, coercing, or intimidating another person to engage in” any of several enumerated categories of predicate conduct, including conduct constituting a violation of R.C. 1707.44(B). R.C. 2923.31(I)(2)(a). Thus, because Willan was “guilty of corrupt activity with the most serious offense in the pattern of corrupt activity being a felony of the first degree,” R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) required the trial court to impose the mandatory ten-year term of imprisonment. 4 January Term, 2013 {¶ 8} We discern no support for the court of appeals’ interpretation that to trigger the mandatory ten-year term, the corrupt activity must also be “associated with” one of the drug offenses and the attempted-rape offense “explicitly enumerated in R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a).” 2011-Ohio-6603 at ¶ 107. That construction overlooks the fact that R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) lists the four offender categories in the disjunctive, signaling that each has a meaning independent from the others and that the existence of any one is sufficient to trigger the mandatory ten-year prison term. “ ‘[C]anons of construction ordinarily suggest that terms connected by a disjunctive be given separate meanings, unless the context dictates otherwise   .’ ” O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374, 2008-Ohio-2574, 889 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 51, quoting Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979). Here, we discern only the General Assembly’s intent to require increased penalties in four separate offender categories, two of which happen to pertain to MDOs. In that respect, the corruptactivity clause is no different from the language in R.C. 2929.13(F)(10), which states that “the court shall impose a prison term    for    [c]orrupt activity in violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code when the most serious offense in the pattern of corrupt activity that is the basis of the offense is a felony of the first degree.” {¶ 9} We also reject the premise underlying the court of appeals’ determination that the statute is ambiguous. According to the court of appeals, ambiguity existed “in light of the [statute’s] explicit application of the mandatory sentence to sixteen different offenses identified by their Revised Code section number, and the failure to include any statutory reference to R.C. 2923.32.” 2011-Ohio-6603 at ¶ 107. While we disagree with the characterization of the statute as a simple list of offenses to which the mandatory prison term automatically applies, we fail to see how specifying the code number of the general corrupt-activity statute, R.C. 2923.32, would further clarify which 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO predicate offenses are sufficient to trigger the mandatory prison term. Regardless, R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) already identifies which predicate offense triggers the mandatory prison term: “the most serious offense in the pattern of corrupt activity being a felony of the first degree.” To add the requirement that the predicate offense must also be one of the drug offenses or the attempted-rape offense would amount to judicial legislation, and we decline to do so. {¶ 10} Equally unconvincing is Willan’s reliance on the doctrine of ejusdem generis. Under that interpretive canon, “whenever words of general meaning follow the enumeration of a particular class, then the general words are to be construed as limited to those things which pertain to the particularly enumerated class.” Akron Home Med. Servs., Inc. v. Lindley, 25 Ohio St.3d 107, 109, 495 N.E.2d 417 (1986). “Corrupt activity” is not a word of general meaning; we must construe it according to its specific legislative definition set forth in R.C. 2923.31(I). There is simply no syntactic or contextual canon of construction that allows us to overlook the only possible meaning of “corrupt activity” or the unambiguous meaning of R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a).