Court Opinion

ID: 9962555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:11:30.928859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:02.008625
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Goins, 2024-Ohio-1559.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                    MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                :       JUDGES:
                                             :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                   :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                                             :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                         :
                                             :
DONALD GOINS, JR.                            :       Case No. CT 2023-0055
                                             :
        Defendant-Appellant                  :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the County Court, Case
                                                     No. CRB2300317(A), (B), and (C)

JUDGMENT:                                            Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    April 23, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

JOHN CONNOR DEVER                                    W. JEFFREY MOORE
27 North Fifth Street                                33 South Grant Avenue
P.O. Box 189                                         Columbus, OH 45662
Zanesville, OH 43702
Muskingum County, Case No. CT 2023-0055                                                  2

King, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Donald Goins, Jr., appeals his June 30, 2023

sentence by the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio. Plaintiff-Appellee

is the state of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.

                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        {¶ 2} On June 30, 2023, Goins pled guilty to one count of violating a protection

order in violation of R.C. 2919.27, one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C.

2919.25, and one count of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21. The

charges arose from text messages sent by Goins to a woman he was involved with in a

long-term relationship.

        {¶ 3} By sentencing entry filed June 30, 2023, the trial court sentenced Goins to

ten days for violating the protection order, ten days for the domestic violence, and thirty

days for the aggravated menacing, to be served consecutively for a total sentence of fifty

days.

        {¶ 4} Goins filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:

                                              I

        {¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED THE APPELLANT

TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND AGGRAVATED

MENACING       PURSUANT        TO    THE    MERGER     DOCTRINE.         ADDITIONALLY,

APPELLANT'S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN HE FAILED TO RAISE A

DOUBLE JEOPARDY ARGUMENT AT SENTENCING."

                                              I
Muskingum County, Case No. CT 2023-0055                                                      3

      {¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Goins claims the trial court erred in

sentencing him to consecutive sentences on the domestic violence and aggravated

menacing counts under the merger doctrine. He further claims his counsel was ineffective

for failing to raise a double jeopardy argument at sentencing. We disagree with Goins's

arguments.

      {¶ 7} Appellate review of an allied-offense question is de novo. State v. Miku, 5th

Dist. Stark No. 2017 CA 00057, 2018-Ohio-1584, ¶ 70, appeal not allowed, 154 Ohio

St.3d 1479, 2019-Ohio-173, 114 N.E.3d 1207 (2019), quoting State v. Williams, 134 Ohio

St.3d 482, 2012-Ohio-5699, 983 N.E.2d 1245, ¶ 12.

      {¶ 8} We note Goins did not object to his sentence during the sentencing hearing.

As held by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-

Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 3:

             An accused's failure to raise the issue of allied offenses of similar

      import in the trial court forfeits all but plain error, and a forfeited error is not

      reversible error unless it affected the outcome of the proceeding and

      reversal is necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.

      Accordingly, an accused has the burden to demonstrate a reasonable

      probability that the convictions are for allied offenses of similar import

      committed with the same conduct and without a separate animus; absent

      that showing, the accused cannot demonstrate that the trial court's failure

      to inquire whether the convictions merge for purposes of sentencing was

      plain error.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT 2023-0055                                                4

       {¶ 9} R.C. 2941.25 governs multiple counts and protects a defendant's rights

under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions by

prohibiting convictions of allied offenses of similar import:

              (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 the defendant may be convicted of all of them.

       {¶ 10} As held by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114,

2015-Ohio-995, 34 N.E.3d 892, ¶ 25:

              A trial court and the reviewing court on appeal when considering

       whether there are allied offenses that merge into a single conviction under

       R.C. 2941.25(A) must first take into account the conduct of the defendant.

       In other words, how were the offenses committed? If any of the following is

       true, the offenses cannot merge and the defendant may be convicted and
Muskingum County, Case No. CT 2023-0055                                                5

      sentenced for multiple offenses: (1) the offenses are dissimilar in import or

      significance—in other words, each offense caused separate, identifiable

      harm, (2) the offenses were committed separately, or (3) the offenses were

      committed with separate animus or motivation.

      {¶ 11} "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.

      {¶ 12} Goins was convicted of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C)

which states: "No person, by threat of force, shall knowingly cause a family or household

member to believe that the offender will cause imminent physical harm to the family or

household member." He was also convicted of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C.

2903.21(A) which states in part: "No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that

the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other

person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family."

      {¶ 13} Goins argues his convictions for domestic violence and aggravated

menacing are offenses of similar import because the commission of domestic violence is

"essentially" the commission of aggravated menacing. Appellant's Brief at 9. He argues

for domestic violence the state was required to prove "he knowingly caused the victim to

believe he would cause imminent harm to her"; for aggravated menacing the state was

required to prove he "knowingly caused the victim to believe that he would cause serious

physical harm to her."    (Emphasis sic.)   Id.   What Goins leaves out is aggravated

menacing also includes knowingly causing another to believe that the offender will cause

serious physical harm to the "property of the other person."
Muskingum County, Case No. CT 2023-0055                                                   6

       {¶ 14} Admittedly, the facts of the charges are not clear as the transcript

references of what the prosecutor and defense counsel said are "INAUDIBLE" at times.

But we are able to ascertain that: 1) the victim feared Goins; 2) she was scared he would

do her substantial physical harm; 3) Goins sent her threatening text messages (more than

one); 4) he threatened to harm the victim; and 5) he threatened to burn her property. June

30, 2023 T. at 8-9.

       {¶ 15} As explained in Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995, 34 N.E.3d 892,

at ¶ 26: "[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 identifiable from the harm of the other offense." We find Goins's conduct

resulted in separate and identifiable harm: threatening text messages to harm her to

support the offense of domestic violence and threatening text messages to harm her

property to support the offense of aggravated menacing. Because we answer in the

affirmative that the "offenses are dissimilar in import or significance" under Ruff, the

offenses cannot merge.

       {¶ 16} We have reviewed the cases cited by Goins in support of his argument to

merge the offenses of domestic violence and aggravated menacing and find them to be

distinguishable. State v. Pate, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-130109, C-130110, C-130112,

2013-Ohio-3470, ¶ 10 (state relied upon the same conduct, threatening victim with a gun,

to support both offenses); State v. Jones, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1060, 2020-Ohio-

5477, ¶ 8 (both charges arose out of a single event threatening the victim with harm

causing her to be afraid for her safety); Ohio v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106542, 2018-

Ohio-4327, ¶ 3 (state agreed on merger based on the facts).
Muskingum County, Case No. CT 2023-0055                                                 7

         {¶ 17} Because Goins has failed to demonstrate plain error, we find he has not

shown prejudice by his counsel's failure to object at the time of sentencing. We find no

reasonable probability that the result would have been different if counsel had raised the

merger issue. Accordingly, we find no merit to Goins's ineffective assistance of counsel

claim.

         {¶ 18} Upon review, we find the offenses were committed separately and the

record does not reflect plain error nor ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court

did not err in sentencing Goins to consecutive sentences as R.C. 2941.25 does not apply

in this case.

         {¶ 19} The judgment of the County Court of Muskingum County, Ohio is hereby

affirmed.

By King, J.

Gwin, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur.