Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
Motion to Certify a Conflict.
Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Paul J. Gains Mahoning County
Prosecutor Atty. Ralph M. Rivera Assistant Prosecuting
Defendant-Appellant: Christopher McBride, Pro se
JUDGES: Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Carol
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
On June 9, 2017, we released our Opinion in State v.
McBride, 7th Dist. No. 16 MA 0002, 2017-Ohio-4281. On
July 5, 2017, Appellant Christopher McBride filed a motion to
certify a conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court, pursuant to
App.R. 25(A). For the following reasons, no conflict exists
between our Opinion and the cases cited by Appellant in his
motion. Accordingly, Appellant's motion to certify a
conflict is overruled.
Motions to certify a conflict are governed by Section
3(B)(4), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. It provides:
Whenever the judges of a court of appeals find that a
judgment upon which they have agreed is in conflict with a
judgment pronounced upon the same question by any other court
of appeals of the state, the judges shall certify the record
of the case to the Supreme Court for review and final
Under Ohio law, "there must be an actual conflict
between appellate judicial districts on a rule of law before
certification of a case to the Supreme Court for review and
final determination is proper." Whitelock v. Gilbane
Bldg. Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613 N.E.2d 1032 (1993),
paragraph one of the syllabus. We have adopted the following
requirements from the Supreme Court:
[A]t least three conditions must be met before and during the
certification of a case to this court pursuant to Section
3(B)(4), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. First, the
certifying court must find that its judgment is in conflict
with the judgment of a court of appeals of another district
and the asserted conflict must be "upon the
same question." Second, the alleged conflict must be on
a rule of law-not facts. Third, the journal entry or opinion
of the certifying court must clearly set forth that rule of
law which the certifying court contends is in conflict with
the judgment on the same question by other district courts of
Id. at 596.
Appellant alleges that our Opinion conflicts with State
v. Taylor, 4th Dist. No. 07CA29, 2008-Ohio-484 and
State v. Manus, 8th Dist. No. 94631, 2011-Ohio-603.
Appellee contends that the respective courts of appeal held
in these two cases that the failure to have determined
whether the offenses in question should be merged prior to
accepting the defendant's guilty plea rendered the pleas
invalid and the pleas were vacated.
In his appeal, Appellant alleged that he was sentenced on
multiple counts which should have merged as allied offenses
of similar import pursuant to R.C. 2941.25(A). Appellant
claims that our determination that the trial court informed
Appellant about his other nonconstitutional rights, including
the maximum potential penalty and fine that could be imposed,
conflicts with the law in Taylor and Manus.
In our holding we noted, "if neither the parties nor the
trial court raise the issue of allied offenses of similar
import and the court does not find that the convictions
should merge for purposes of sentencing, the imposition of
separate sentences is not contrary to law." McBride,
supra, at ¶ 29, citing State v. Rogers,143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860. As
Appellant failed to raise the issue of allied offenses of
similar import at trial, we conducted a plain error analysis
and concluded that as the trial court made no finding
regarding merger and Appellant ...