State v. Haller

Decision Date13 November 2012
Docket NumberNo. 1–11–34.,1–11–34.
Citation982 N.E.2d 111
PartiesSTATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Ronald HALLER, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kenneth J. Rexford, Lima, for appellant.

Jana E. Emerick, Lima, for appellee.

ROGERS, J.

{¶ 1} DefendantAppellant, Ronald Haller, appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County finding him guilty of three counts of complicity to commit aggravated burglary, three counts of complicity to commit aggravated robbery, three counts of complicity to commit abduction, two counts of complicity to commit burglary, two counts of complicity to commit grand theft, and one count of receiving stolen property, and sentencing him to an aggregate prison term of thirty-one years. On appeal, Haller contends that the verdict forms for Counts X and XII were insufficient under R.C. 2945.75 to support his convictions for second degree felonies; that the trial court erred when it did not merge Counts XI, XII, and XV, and when it did not merge Counts XIII and XIV; that the trial court erred by not declaring R.C. 2941.25 unconstitutional; that the trial court erred in imposing multiple sentences for the same act in violation of R.C. 2941.25; that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on complicity; that he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Based on the following, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's judgment.

{¶ 2} This matter stems from a series of burglaries that occurred at five separate residences in Allen County between November 2008 and May 2010. Each burglary was committed by an individual named Benny Woolwine (“Woolwine”). The first burglary occurred on November 5, 2008 at a residence on Ottawa Road (“Ottawa Burglary”). The second burglary occurred on August 26, 2009 at a residence on Highland Lakes Drive (“Highland Burglary”). The first two burglaries were committed when the residents were away and resulted in the theft of guns and other items from the residences. The third burglary occurred on December 14, 2009 at a residence on Amherst Road (“Amherst Burglary”). The fourth burglary occurred on May 5, 2010 at a residence on Gomer Road (“Gomer Burglary”). The fifth burglary occurred on May 19, 2010 at a residence on Kissing Hollow Drive (“Kissing Hollow Burglary”). The last three burglaries were committed when someone other than an accomplice was present in the residence. On each occasion, Woolwine held an individual at gunpoint, bound the individual's hands and feet, and proceeded to steal various items from the residence. In July 2010, law enforcement arrested Woolwine in connection with the foregoing burglaries. Eventually, Woolwine confessed that he committed the burglaries and that Haller had aided and/or abetted him in each of the burglaries.

{¶ 3} On October 14, 2010, the Allen County Grand Jury returned a fifteen count indictment against Haller. As to the Amherst Burglary, Haller was charged as follows: Count I, complicity to commit aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the first degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A); Count II, complicity to commit aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the first degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A); and, Count III, complicity to commit abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the third degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A). As to the Gomer Burglary, Haller was charged as follows: Count IV, complicity to commit aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the first degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A); Count V, complicity to commit aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the first degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A) and a forfeiture specification under R.C. 2981.02(A)(3) and R.C. 2941.1417; Count VI, complicity to commit abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the third degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A); Count VII, complicity to commit kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the first degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A). As to the Kissing Hollow Burglary, Haller was charged as follows: Count VIII, complicity to commit aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the first degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A); Count IX, complicity to commit aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the first degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A); and, Count X, complicity to commit abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the third degree with a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A). As to the Ottawa Burglary, Haller was charged as follows: Count XI, complicity to commit burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the second degree; and, Count XII, complicity to commit grand theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) & (B)(4) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the third degree. As to the Highland Burglary, Haller was charged as follows: Count XIII, complicity to commit burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the second degree; and, Count XIV, complicity to commit grand theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) & (B)(4) and R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), a felony of the third degree. Finally, Haller was charged with Count XV, receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), a felony of the fourth degree.

{¶ 4} On October 18, 2010, Haller entered pleas of not guilty to all counts in the indictment.

{¶ 5} On April 11, 2011, the matter proceeded to a jury trial. Prior to trial, the State dismissed Count VII. On April 15, 2011, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all remaining counts and specifications. On May 19, 2011, the matter proceeded to sentencing. As to the Amherst Burglary, the trial court sentenced Haller to a six-year prison term on Count I, a six-year prison term on Count II, and a mandatory three-year prison term on the firearm specification, and ordered Counts I and II be served concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the sentence imposed for the firearm specification. 1 As to the Gomer Burglary, the trial court sentenced Haller to a six-year prison term on Count IV, a six-year prison term on Count V,2 and a mandatory three-year prison term on the firearm specification, and ordered Counts IV and V be served concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the sentence imposed for the firearm specification.3 As to the Kissing Hollow Burglary, the trial court sentenced Haller to a six-year prison term on Count VIII, a six-year prison term on Count IX, and a mandatory three-year prison term on the firearm specification, and ordered Counts VIII and IX be served concurrently to each other, but consecutivelyto the sentence imposed for the firearm specification.4 As to the Ottawa Burglary, the trial court sentenced Haller to a two-year prison term on Count XI and a two-year prison term on Count XII, and ordered Counts XI and XII be served concurrently to each other. As to the Highland Burglary, the trial court sentenced Haller to a two-year prison term on Count XIII and a two-year prison term on Count XIV, and ordered Counts XIII and XIV be served concurrently to each other. As for Count XV, the trial court sentenced Haller to a one-year prison term to be served concurrently to Count XII. In sum, the Haller was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of thirty-one years. The trial court further ordered Haller to pay restitution to the victims in an amount totaling $15,155.00,5 and, after a forfeiture hearing, that his vehicle, a 2000 Chevrolet Suburban, be forfeited to the Allen County Commissioners.

{¶ 6} It is from this judgment Haller appeals, presenting the following assignments of error for our review.

Assignment of Error No. I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AS TO COUNTS XI AND XII (BURGLARY) AS FELONIES OF THE SECOND DEGREE, AND SENTENCING ACCORDINGLY, AS THE VERDICT FORMS WERE SUFFICIENT AS TO EACH ONLY FOR THE LESSER OFFENSES OF BURGLARY, FELONIES OF THE FOURTH DEGREE.

Assignment of Error No. II

MR. HALLER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY, NOTICE, DUE PROCESS, AND PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WHEN THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO MERGE COUNTS XI, XII, AND XV TOGETHER AND COUNTS XIII AND XIV TOGETHER AS ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT.

Assignment of Error No. III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT DECLARING R.C. § 2941.25 UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID FOR VAGUENESS, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE MERGED ALL ALLIED OFFENSES.

Assignment of Error No. IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING MULTIPLE SENTENCES FOR THE SAME ACT, IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 2941.25 AND OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

Assignment of Error No. V

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON COMPLICITY.

Assignment of Error No. VI
MR. HALLER WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL IN THAT COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO MISLEADING AND INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTIONS AS TO COMPLICITY.

Assignment of Error No. VII
THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶ 7} Due to the nature of Haller's assignments of error, we elect to address the assignments out of order and combine the assignments where appropriate.

Assignment of Error No. VII

{¶ 8} In his seventh assignment of error, Haller contends that the jury's verdicts were against the manifest weight of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • State v. Gideon
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • June 1, 2021
    ...‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court's judgment." State v. Haller , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-11-34, 2012-Ohio-5233, 982 N.E.2d 111, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Hunter , 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.Sufficiency of the E......
  • State v. Carpenter
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 2019
    ...‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court's judgment." State v. Haller , 3d Dist. Allen, 2012-Ohio-5233, 982 N.E.2d 111, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Hunter , 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.Sufficiency of the Evidence Anal......
  • State v. Frye
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 2018
    ...evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court's judgment." State v. Haller , 3d Dist., 2012-Ohio-5233, 982 N.E.2d 111, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Hunter , 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119, 960 N.E.2d 955.{¶ 15} At trial, the State of......
  • State v. Bentz
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 2017
    ...the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court's judgment." State v. Haller , 2012-Ohio-5233, 982 N.E.2d 111, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Hunter , 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.{¶ 14} At trial, the State offered ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT