State v. Chapman
| Decision Date | 02 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1958,84-1958 |
| Citation | 21 OBR 327,487 N.E.2d 566,21 Ohio St.3d 41 |
| Parties | , 21 O.B.R. 327 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. CHAPMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
An individual indicted for and convicted of R.C. 2911.01, aggravated robbery, and R.C. 2941.141, a firearm specification, is subject to a mandatory three-year term of actual incarceration under R.C. 2929.71, regardless of whether he was the principal offender or an unarmed accomplice. (State v. Moore [1985], 16 Ohio St.3d 30, 476 N.E.2d 355, followed.)
Defendant-appellant, Paul L. Chapman, was indicted on February 21, 1984 by a Champaign County Grand Jury on one count of aggravated burglary under R.C. 2911.11(A)(3) and on one count of aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01. The aggravated robbery count included a specification that Chapman had a firearm "on or about his person or under his control" in violation of R.C. 2941.141.
At Chapman's jury trial on April 9 and 10, 1984, the testimony established that Chapman himself had not been armed during the robbery, but that one of his two co-defendants had been armed with a firearm. Chapman was convicted on both counts. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of ten to twenty-five years on the aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery counts plus three years on the firearm specification.
Chapman's conviction was upheld by the court of appeals. The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion for leave to appeal.
Philip S. Schneider, Urbana, Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Darrell L. Heckman, Urbana, for appellant.
This case raises the question of whether an unarmed accomplice to an armed robbery, convicted of violating R.C. 2911.01, may be sentenced to a mandatory three-year term under the enhancement provision of R.C. 2929.71. This court previously held that unarmed accomplices were subject to R.C. 2929.71 as it read prior to July 1, 1983. State v. Moore (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 30, 476 N.E.2d 355. We now reach the same conclusion with regard to the current version of R.C. 2929.71.
R.C. 2929.71(A) provides:
Because Chapman was convicted of aggravated robbery, a felony, and of a firearm specification, the statute mandates a three-year term of actual incarceration.
Chapman argues that R.C. 2941.141(A) precludes application of the enhancement provision to unarmed accomplices. R.C. 2941.141 provides:
"(A) Imposition of a term of actual incarceration upon an offender under division (A) of section 2929.71 of the Revised Code for having a firearm on or about his person or under his control while committing a felony is precluded unless the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offense specifies that the offender did have a firearm on or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moore
...enhancement on a firearm specification regardless of whether he was the principal or an unarmed accomplice. State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 42–43 487 N.E.2d 566 (1986). See also State v. Moore, 16 Ohio St.3d 30, 476 N.E.2d 355 (1985). {¶ 59} Appellant suggests that the Supreme Court's C......
-
State v. Stevens
...CA2021-09-116, 2022-Ohio-3178, at ¶ 24; State v. Humphries, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99924, 2014-Ohio-1230, ¶ 18, citing State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 42, 487 N.E.2d 566 (1986), (upholding unarmed accomplice's conviction for aggravated robbery with a firearm specification). "In such a c......
-
State v. Peterson
...specification, based on an aider and abettor status. Howard, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97695, 2012-Ohio-3459, at ¶ 24; State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 487 N.E.2d 566 (1986). The same principle applies to a conviction for having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)......
-
State v. Gilbert
...had personally performed each of the acts." State v. Wynn, 131 Ohio App.3d 725, 729, 723 N.E.2d 627 (1998), citing State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 487 N.E.2d 566 (1986). {¶60} The facts of this case reveal that the crime was coordinated so that Appellant would cause Kaluza to have an au......