In August, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to review the state’s appeal of an Eighth District Court of Appeals decision concerning firearm enhancements and the trial court’s authority to determine the appropriate sentence for a criminal defendant. With only Justices Jennifer Brunner and Joseph Deters dissenting, the Court may very well alter the current power distribution inherent in Ohio’s criminal justice system where the prosecution brings the charges, the defense presents mitigating factors in favor of leniency, and the judge ultimately determines the appropriate sentence.
It is well-established that, in Ohio, trial courts have the sole discretion to impose sentences on criminal defendants. Trial courts are in the best position to accurately assess the facts and determine the appropriate sentence for a defendant. The State of Ohio, however, is challenging this widely accepted rule, and the Supreme Court of Ohio has agreed to hear their challenge in the case of State v. Holliman.
In December 2023, Harry Holliman visited the home of his friend, David Wright. Wright’s girlfriend and grandchild were both present, as well. After Wright asked Holliman to leave, Holliman took his revolver and fired two shots into the air and one into the house. The granddaughter was behind Wright and observed the entire incident; the girlfriend remained in the house. After Wright called the police, the state charged Holliman with three counts of felonious assault and two additional firearm-related charges, one for shooting into a habitation or school and another for discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises. These counts also carried one- and three-year firearm specifications, respectively.
Colloquially referred to as “gun specs,” firearm specifications are sentence enhancements imposed on an offender who committed an underlying offense involving a firearm. In Ohio, there are one- and three-year gun specs statutes. A one-year gun spec is added to an offender’s sentence if the offender possesses a firearm while committing an offense. A three-year gun spec is added when an offender brandishes, displays, indicates possession of, or uses a firearm while committing an offense. The jury decides whether the defendant is guilty of the gun specs just as they would any other charge.
The trial court found Holliman guilty of discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises as well as both the one- and three-year gun specs. The jury acquitted Holliman of all remaining charges. At sentencing, the trial judge imposed only the one-year firearm specification on Holliman’s sentence. Accordingly, he was sentenced to a total of 21 months of prison – 9 months for the underlying offense plus an additional 12 months for the gun specs.
The State of Ohio appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to impose the three-year gun spec despite the jury finding him guilty of both. The Eighth District affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that sentencing is within the sole discretion of the trial court. The firearm specification statutes expressly state that, as well. In cases where a criminal defendant is guilty under both statutes, the trial judge cannot impose both. The court stated that:
The General Assembly did not state that a trial court must only and always order the three-year specification in a case such as this – if it had intended that, it would have written it into the relevant statutes. The lack of limiting language in a statute permits its broad interpretation.
The state also argued that the firearm specification statutes should be treated as allied offenses. Allied offenses are crimes where the commission of one crime also constitutes the commission of another, and a defendant may only be convicted of one. These offenses then merge, and prosecutors may elect which charge to pursue at trial. The appellate court rejected this argument swiftly, stating “firearm specifications are sentencing enhancements, not separate criminal offenses,” and thereby, they do not merge.
The State of Ohio appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. The state raised one singular proposition of law on appeal – when an offender is found guilty of both firearm specifications for the same underlying offense, the specifications merge, and the state may decide which to pursue at sentencing.
In their brief to the Court, the state argues that both lower courts’ decisions interfere with the prosecutor’s ability to bring charges, and that their decisions create a windfall to offenders. Prosecutors now will have the incentive, the state argues, to only charge a three-year gun spec even if the evidence does not support it resulting in an increased likelihood of a not-guilty verdict as to the specification. The state asserts, “This reduces a community’s ability to punish criminal conduct to the precise degree allowed by the General Assembly and would be an unjust windfall to the dangerous defendant.”
In response, Holliman criticizes the state’s argument as misunderstanding how sentencing in Ohio works – it is the role of the trial court, not the prosecutor, to impose sentencing on a criminal defendant. There is no indication that this distribution of power is failing, or that the firearm specification statutes provide otherwise. Accordingly, Holliman provides a solution to ease the state’s fears without disturbing the status quo:
[I]f prosecutors feel strongly that a particular case warrants imposition of a three-year firearm specification but are uncertain the sentencing court will agree, then the prosecutorial power to decide what charges to bring can be the solution: they need only elect to not include the one-year specification in the indictment in the first place.
The Supreme Court of Ohio decided to review this case, believing it to be of public or great general interest. If the Court sides with the state, it will have a profound impact upon Ohio’s current criminal sentencing scheme.