Court Opinion

ID: 9955511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 17:12:34.341703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:03.137436
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Kronenberg, 2024-Ohio-1159.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                           No. 111840
                v.                                :

MICHELLE KRONENBERG,                              :

                Defendant-Appellant. :
                _______________________________________

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR REOPENING GRANTED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 25, 2024
                ________________________________________

                     Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                           Case No. CR-21-661238-A
                           Application for Reopening
                               Motion No. 565294
               _________________________________________

                                            Appearances:

                Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                Attorney, and Owen Knapp, Assistant Prosecuting
                Attorney, for appellee.

                Michelle Kronenberg, pro se.

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J.:

                   On June 16, 2023, the applicant, Michelle Kronenberg, pursuant to

App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992),

applied to reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Kronenberg, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 111840, 2023-Ohio-1749, in which this court affirmed her convictions for three

counts of violating a protection order, one count of menacing by stalking, and one

count of telecommunications harassment. She now argues that her appellate

counsel did not properly argue that some of the charges were allied offenses and

should have merged. The state filed its brief in opposition on July 17, 2023. For the

following reasons, this court grants the application to reopen.

              Michelle Kronenberg and James LaMarca had been friends for many

years, but eventually Kronenberg’s persistent telephone calls to him resulted in

LaMarca obtaining a civil protection order prohibiting her from contacting him.

Nevertheless, Kronenberg continued her persistent calling.        In 2011, the common

pleas court found her guilty of violating the protection order, telecommunications

harassment and trespass; the court sentenced her to three years in prison. State v.

Kronenberg, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-11-548068. In 2013, she was convicted of

telecommunications harassment and violating a protection order. The trial court

merged the two convictions as allied offenses and sentenced her to three years. State

v. Kronenberg, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-579027. Subsequently, the grand jury

indicted her for three counts of menacing in 2017. The trial court found her guilty

on all counts and sentenced her to a total of 54 months. State v. Kronenberg,

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-614825.

              When she finished her prison term in late June 2021, she immediately

sent LaMarca a letter in which she admitted that she was violating the protection

order. LaMarca received the letter on June 30, 2021, and made a police report. On
July 7, Kronenberg called LaMarca three more times. This resulted in her arrest and

indictment on the following charges:

      Count 1: Violating a protection order pursuant to R.C. 2919.27(A)(2),
      a third-degree felony, for violating a protection order between June 30,
      2021, to July 7, 2021, by committing a felony offense, to wit: Menacing
      by Stalking and/or Telecommunications Harassment.

      Count 2: Violating a protection order pursuant to R.C. 2919.27(A)(2),
      a fifth-degree felony, on or about June 30, 2021, with a furthermore
      clause of having previously violated a protection order in Case No. CR-
      11-548068.

      Count 3: Violating a protection order pursuant to R.C. 2919.27(A)(2),
      a fifth-degree felony, on July 7, 2021 with a furthermore clause of
      having previously violated a protection order in Case No. CR-13-
      579027.

      Count 4: Menacing by stalking pursuant to R.C. 2903.211(A)(1), a
      fourth-degree felony, for engaging in a pattern of conduct causing
      James LaMarca or one of his family members to believe that she would
      cause physical harm or mental distress between June 30, 2021, and
      July 7, 2021, with a furthermore clause of having previously violated
      this provision.

      Count 5: Telecommunications harassment pursuant to R.C.
      2917.21(A)(5), a fifth-degree felony, for the communications made on
      July 7, 2021, with a furthermore clause of have previously committed
      this offense in Case Nos. CR-11-548068 and/or CR-09-528987.

              During pretrial proceedings, the trial court, after hearing from three

psychiatrists, ruled that Kronenberg was competent to stand trial and to represent

herself. During trial, she testified and admitted the contacts with LaMarca. She also

argued in various ways that some of the counts should merge. The trial court found

her guilty on all counts and sentenced her as follows: 30 months on Count 1,

consecutive to ten months on Count 2, ten months on Count 3, 180 days on Count
4, and ten months on Count 5.          The latter three counts were to be served

concurrently with each other and the first two counts. Kronenberg moved to vacate

the sentence on the grounds that various counts should have merged as allied

offenses, which was denied by the trial court.

               On appeal, her appointed counsel argued the competency issue and

included by reference her motion to vacate. This court affirmed holding, inter alia,

that incorporating an argument by reference was insufficient. Kronenberg now

argues that the count for telecommunications harassment should merge with

Counts 1 and 3 for violating a protection order, because in the act of making the

phone calls on July 7, she committed both crimes with the same action, the same

animus, and the same import.

               App.R. 26(B) provides that the application shall be granted if there is

a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance

of appellate counsel. Generally, in order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance

of appellate counsel, the applicant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance

was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense: but for

counsel’s error there is a reasonable probability that the results of the proceeding

would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to

undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538

N.E.2d 373 (1989); and State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534, 660 N.E.2d 456 (1996).
              Kronenberg argues that the trial court erred when it failed to merge

her convictions for telecommunications harassment and violating a protection

order. Alternatively, she argues that her conviction on Count 1, violation of a

protection order, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because she is receiving an

additional punishment for the same offense.

              Her appellate counsel’s effort to include the allied offense argument

by incorporation was deficient because it prevented the argument from being

examined on its merits.

              The courts of Ohio have ruled that if the same act committed with a

single animus constitutes a crime, such as assault, and the act also violates a

protection order, then the two crimes should merge as allied offenses. In State v.

Seymour, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2011-07-131 and CA2011-07-143, 2012-Ohio-

3125, ¶ 26, the court ruled: “We find that the commission of domestic violence,

aggravated burglary, and violating a protection order were committed by a single act

with a single state of mind.” That court reached a similar conclusion in State v.

Weathers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-01013, 2011-Ohio-6793, when it merged

felonious assault, domestic violence, and violation of a protective order.      The

Eleventh District merged felonious assault with the violation of a protection order

in State v. O’Brien, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-011, 2013-Ohio-13.

              These cases convince this court that Kronenberg raises a colorable

claim or genuine issue as to whether she was deprived of the effective assistance of
appellate for failure to properly raise merger of allied offenses. Accordingly, this

court grants the application to reopen.

               Attorney Scott J. Friedman, 1360 E. 9th St., #600, Cleveland, Ohio,

44114, is appointed to represent Kronenberg. Counsel is instructed to apply for

compensation within 30 days after the journalization of this court’s final decision in

the reopened appeal.

               The clerk of the court of appeals is instructed to reassemble the record

in 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111840 as it existed during the court’s original review of

the judgment in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-661238-A. App.R. 26(B)(7) shall govern

the filing of the record and the briefs.

________________________________________
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, PRESIDING JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and
LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR