Portage County Legal News

Woman convicted of vehicular homicide loses appeal for shorter sentence

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 20, 2015

The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas was recently affirmed by the 9th District Court of Appeals which held that a woman’s convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide and OVI should not have merged for sentencing.

The defendant, Shauntae Marie Hill, was found guilty by a jury of aggravated vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter and OVI.

Though all three counts stemmed from the same incident, the trial court only merged the homicide and manslaughter and sentenced Hill to six years in prison on that count.

For the OVI, the court ordered that Hill spend a consecutive 24 days of “local incarceration, to be served at the appropriate penal institution.”

On appeal, Hill argued that the trial court erred by failing to merge the vehicular homicide and the OVI as allied offenses of similar import.

According to Hill, the OVI served as the predicate offense for her homicide count so the two had to merge.

“We disagree,” Judge Carla Moore wrote in the opinion she authored on behalf of the court of appeals. “At issue in this case is a perceived conflict between the allied offenses statute and the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Moore noted that, in 1999, the General Assembly amended R.C. 2929.41, the multiple sentences statute, in order to establish stricter penalties for OVIs.

In certain circumstances, the amendment was meant to eliminate the prohibition against imposing a prison term for a misdemeanor consecutively to a prison term for a felony.

“As previously noted, the jury found Ms. Hill guilty of OVI, a first-degree misdemeanor, and aggravated vehicular homicide, a first-degree felony,” Moore wrote. “In considering whether the two counts should merge for sentencing, the trial court looked to the intent of the legislature.”

The trial court found that the General Assembly, in plain language, demonstrated a “clear intent” to allow for separate, consecutive sentences.

Still, Hill argued that her right to be protected from double jeopardy was violated because the OVI was not a separate offense but a predicate offense. Again, the court of appeals found otherwise.

“If the legislature has specifically authorized cumulative punishment, no double jeopardy violation occurs,” Moore wrote, noting that several other districts have made the same findings.

She specifically cited the 10th District Court of Appeals, which held that the legislature had “clearly reflected its intent that a trial court may, in its discretion, sentence a defendant for both OVI and aggravated vehicular assault.”

The 10th District court further held that, even assuming that the offenses were allied, the General Assembly had created an exception to the general rule provided in the allied offense statute.

Moore noted that the 5th, 8th and 11th District courts had all made the same findings in similar cases and the appellate panel refused to fly in the face of court precedent in the case of Hill.

“As such, her argument that the court erred by refusing the merge her offenses lacks merit,” Moore concluded.

The judgment of the Summit County court was affirmed with Presiding Judge Jennifer Hensal and Judge Beth Whitmore concurring.

The case is cited State v. Hill, 2015-Ohio-1122.

[Back]