From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Chapman

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 2, 1986
21 Ohio St. 3d 41 (Ohio 1986)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

concluding that "[a]n 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 * * * regardless of whether he was the principal offender or an unarmed accomplice"

Summary of this case from State v. Norwood
See 9 Summaries

Opinion

No. 84-1958

Decided January 2, 1986.

Criminal law — Mandatory three-year term of actual incarceration — R.C. 2929.71 — Applicable to principal offender or unarmed accomplice.

O.Jur 3d Criminal Law § 416.5

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, 16 Ohio St.3d 30, followed.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Champaign County.

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, prosecuting attorney, for appellee.

Darrell L. Heckman, for appellant.

WRIGHT, J.

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. We now reach the same conclusion with regard to the current version of R.C. 2929.71.

R.C. 2929.71(A) provides:

"The court shall impose a term of actual incarceration of three years in addition to imposing a life sentence pursuant to section 2907.02, 2907.12, or 2929.02 of the Revised Code or an indefinite term of imprisonment pursuant to section 2929.11 of the Revised Code, if both of the following apply:

"(1) The offender is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, any felony other than a violation of section 2923.12 [carrying a concealed weapon] of the Revised Code;

"(2) The offender is also convicted of, or pleads guilty to, a specification charging him with having a firearm on or about his person or under his control while committing the felony. The three-year term of actual incarceration imposed pursuant to this section shall be served consecutively with, and prior to, the life sentence or the indefinite term of imprisonment."

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 about his person or under his control while committing the offense. * * *"

Chapman's argument ignores the language of R.C. 2923.03, which sets forth the crime of complicity. R.C. 2923.03(F) provides: "Whoever violates this section is guilty of complicity in the commission of an offense, and shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender. A charge of complicity may be stated in terms of this section, or in terms of the principal offense." (Emphasis added.) As provided for in this statute, Chapman, an accomplice in the crime of aggravated robbery, was charged as a principal under R.C. 2911.01(A), aggravated robbery, and R.C. 2941.141, a firearm specification. When he was convicted under both of these statutes, Chapman was properly "punished as if he were principal offender."

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. See State v. Moore, supra.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and DOUGLAS, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

State v. Chapman

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 2, 1986
21 Ohio St. 3d 41 (Ohio 1986)

concluding that "[a]n 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 * * * regardless of whether he was the principal offender or an unarmed accomplice"

Summary of this case from State v. Norwood

In Chapman, the Supreme Court of Ohio applied former R.C. 2923.03(F), which provided that "`[w]hoever violates this section is guilty of complicity in the commission of an offense, and shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender. * * * A charge of complicity may be stated in terms of this section, or in terms of the principal offense [,]'" id. at 42, 487 N.E.2d 566 (emphasis sic.), and concluded that the appellant was properly "`punished as if he were a principal offender.'"

Summary of this case from Brown v. Konteh

In State v. Chapman (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 487 N.E.2d 566, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that "[a]n 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."

Summary of this case from Brown v. Konteh

In Chapman, this court considered 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 penalty-enhancement provision of former R.C. 2929.71(A)(2), now R.C. 2929.14(D)(1).

Summary of this case from State v. Hanning

In State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 487 N.E.2d 566 (1986), the Supreme Court of Ohio held that an individual convicted of aggravated robbery and of a firearm specification was subject to the then-applicable sentencing enhancement "regardless of whether he or she was the principal offender or an unarmed accomplice."

Summary of this case from State v. Stein

In Chapman, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld an accomplice's convictions for aggravated robbery and the accompanying firearm specifications, despite his contention that there was no evidence he was aware that a weapon would be used.

Summary of this case from State v. Hall

In Chapman, not only was the accomplice convicted of aggravated robbery despite protestation that there was no evidence that he was aware that a weapon would be used, but he was also convicted of the accompanying firearm specification.

Summary of this case from State v. Thompson

In Chapman, the court held that an individual indicted for and convicted of violating R.C. 2911.01, aggravated robbery, and of a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.141 is subject to sentencing enhancement pursuant to former R.C. 2929.71, regardless of whether he or she was the principal offender or an unarmed accomplice.

Summary of this case from State v. Jackson

In Chapman, the Supreme Court of Ohio applied former R.C. 2923.03(F), which provided that "`[w]hoever violates this section is guilty of complicity in the commission of an offense, and shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender. * * * A charge of complicity may be stated in terms of this section, or in terms of the principal offense[,]'" id. at 42 (emphasis sic.), and concluded that the appellant was properly "`punished as if he were a principal offender.'"

Summary of this case from State v. Brown
Case details for

State v. Chapman

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CHAPMAN, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jan 2, 1986

Citations

21 Ohio St. 3d 41 (Ohio 1986)
487 N.E.2d 566

Citing Cases

State v. Kimble

(Emphasis added.) State v. Jackson (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 702, 705, citing State v. Chapman (1986), 21 Ohio…

State v. Moore

Appellant acknowledges that the Ohio Supreme Court has previously held that a defendant is subject to…

79 Citing Cases