The Sixth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the convictions and sentences of Jake I. Hoffman, who was appealing judgments from the Wood County Court of Common Pleas. The case, which involved multiple charges stemming from incidents in early 2024, centered on Hoffman’s claims that two of his convictions should have been merged to avoid double jeopardy. The court disagreed, finding that the trial court did not err.
Background of the Case
The appeal consolidated three separate cases against Hoffman. However, the core of the appeal focused on case number 2024CR0094, which involved events on February 21, 2024. In this case, Hoffman was charged with multiple offenses related to an incident at the home of the victim, S.B.
The February 21st Incident
On February 21, 2024, Hoffman went to S.B.’s home in an attempt to get rid of a protection order that S.B. had obtained against him. He entered the residence, grabbed S.B., and attempted to kiss and hug her. S.B. pushed him outside, and Hoffman was later arrested at his own home.
Prior to this incident, the police had been called to S.B.’s address on January 14, 2023, and January 15, 2024, regarding incidents involving Hoffman. On January 15, 2024, Hoffman led the Bowling Green Police on a high-speed chase. The victim contacted the police via social media on January 24, 2024, which led to a warrant being issued for telephone harassment.
Charges and Plea Deal
In case 2024CR0094, Hoffman was initially indicted on four counts: burglary, menacing by stalking, and two counts of violating a protection order. Following plea negotiations, Hoffman pleaded guilty to menacing by stalking and violating a protection order. The other two charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to prison terms for both offenses, to be served consecutively to each other and to other sentences from different cases.
Hoffman’s Argument: Double Jeopardy and Allied Offenses
Hoffman’s primary argument on appeal was that the trial court should have merged the convictions for menacing by stalking and violating a protection order. He claimed these were “allied offenses of similar import,” meaning they arose from the same conduct and should not result in multiple punishments under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Ohio law.
The Court’s Analysis: Plain Error Review
Because Hoffman’s attorney did not raise the merger issue at the trial court level, the appellate court reviewed the case under a “plain error” standard. This is a high bar, requiring Hoffman to show that the trial court made an obvious error that prejudiced the outcome of the case.
The Three-Part Test for Allied Offenses
The court explained that determining whether offenses should be merged involves a three-part test:
1. Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance?
2. Were they committed separately?
3. Were they committed with separate animus or motivation?
If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” the defendant can be convicted of multiple offenses.
Court’s Reasoning: Separate and Identifiable Harms
The court focused on the “import” prong of the test, specifically whether the harms resulting from each offense were separate and identifiable. The court found that they were.
The court explained that the harm caused by menacing by stalking is “mental distress.” The court noted that the fact that Hoffman trespassed on the victim’s land is not an element of the actual offense. Rather, it is an element that, if found, enhances the offense level. The court then contrasted this with the offense of violating a protection order.
The court identified several separate harms caused by violating a protection order:
* Depriving the victim of her court-ordered right to be free from contact.
* Intrusion into the sanctity of the home, as Hoffman was also charged with burglary.
* Harm to the integrity of the judicial system, as Hoffman willfully disregarded a court order.
The court concluded that because the harms associated with each offense were separate and identifiable, the convictions were not allied offenses. Therefore, the trial court did not err by not merging the convictions.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Dismissed
Hoffman also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing for the merger of the charges. Because the appellate court found no error in the trial court’s decision, it dismissed this argument as moot.
Conclusion
The Sixth Appellate District Court affirmed the Wood County Court of Common Pleas’ judgment, finding no error in the trial court’s decision. Hoffman was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.