State v. Johnson
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
State v. Simmons confined the precedential force of Johnson's separate opinions, and State v. Ruff supplied the complete allied-offenses framework after finding Johnson's analysis incomplete. The other opinions followed Johnson, corrected a misreading of it (State v. Washington held that Johnson never limited merger analysis to the state's trial theory), or reported its overruling of State v. Rance.
966 later cases cite State v. Johnson; 165 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on State v. Johnson?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court held that Johnson could not be applied retroactively to a conviction that was already final when Johnson was announced.
State v. Boyce · Second District Court of Appeals of Ohio · filed
Boyce attempts to avoid the res judicata bar by reliance on Johnson, which was decided subsequently. However, a new judicial ruling applies only to cases that are pending on the announcement date of the new ruling, and may not be applied retroactively to a conviction that has become final.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Johnson had no applicability to convictions and sentences that were already final when Johnson was released.
State v. Literal · Fourth District Court of Appeals of Ohio · filed
Appellant’s case was not pending on direct review at the time State v. Johnson was released. As such, it has no applicability to Appellant’s convictions or sentences.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Johnson's allied-offenses rule does not apply retroactively to a conviction that became final before Johnson was announced.
State v. Sturdivant · Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District · filed
The more recent developments in Ohio’s jurisprudence concerning merger of allied offenses of similar import cannot be applied retroactively to appellant.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Johnson cannot be applied to a defendant whose conviction became final before Johnson was decided.
State v. Musselman · Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District · filed
Johnson was decided on December 29, 2010, and cannot be applied to Musselman.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Johnson does not apply retroactively to convictions and sentences that became final before Johnson was announced.
State v. Hare · Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District · filed
Appellant's conviction and sentence were final on June 25, 2008. The Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, does not apply retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Johnson does not apply retroactively to a conviction that became final before it was announced.
State v. Wagner · Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District · filed
Finally, appellant’s arguments fail substantively. The Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Johnson does not apply retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that because the defendant's case was already closed when Johnson issued, Johnson's analysis was unavailable and the pre-Johnson allied-offense test applied.
State v. Hopkins · Ohio Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District · filed
As appellant's underlying case was closed and there was nothing pending at the time State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, was released by the Ohio Supreme Court, this court must apply the pre-Johnson allied offense analysis set forth in State v. Nicholas, 66 Ohio St.3d 431, 434 (1993).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Johnson may not be applied retroactively to convictions that became final before Johnson was decided.
State v. Johnson · Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District · filed
Johnson may not be applied retroactively to convictions that have become final.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that because Johnson produced no majority opinion beyond its unanimous syllabus, little else in its separate opinions is binding precedent.
State v. Simmons · Ohio Court of Appeals, Seventh Appellate District · filed
Because Johnson did not contain a majority opinion, little else from the various opinions can be considered precedent.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held that Johnson applies prospectively only and does not govern criminal cases in which the defendant exhausted appellate remedies before Johnson was decided.
Morris Jackson v. Keith Smith · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · filed
After Jackson filed his opening brief, another panel of this court held, as a matter of Ohio law, that Johnson applies only in criminal cases that are not yet final, which is to say prospectively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Johnson's merger rule is unavailable on collateral attack when the conviction became final before Johnson was announced.
State v. Pizarro · Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth District · filed
But Pizarro was sentenced before Johnson was decided. As the Second Appellate District has explained, an appellant seeking to challenge his pre-Johnson sentencing on the grounds of merger cannot rely on Johnson because ‘[a] new judicial ruling may be applied only to cases that are pending on the announcement date. * * * The new judicial ruling may not be applied retroactively to a conviction that has become final, i.e., where the accused has exhausted all of his appellate remedies.’
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Ohio held Johnson's conduct-focused syllabus incomplete and required courts also to consider dissimilar import, including separate identifiable harm, separate commission, and separate animus.
State v. Ruff · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
While it is true that the syllabus in Johnson says that ‘[w]hen determining whether two offenses are allied offenses of similar import subject to merger under R.C. 2941.25, the conduct of the accused must be considered,’ this language does not offer the complete analysis necessary to determine whether offenses are subject to merger rather than multiple convictions and cumulative punishment. We agree with the state that our decision in Johnson was incomplete because R.C. 2941.25(B) provides that when a defendant’s conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, the defendant may be convicted of all of the offenses.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Johnson does not apply retroactively to convictions that were already final when Johnson was announced.
State ex rel. Walker v. State · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
Ketterer held that Johnson does not apply retroactively to cases that were final prior to the date that decision was announced.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that a defendant sentenced before Johnson cannot invoke Johnson retroactively after the conviction became final.
State v. Leggett · Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth District · filed
As set forth above, appellant was convicted by a jury on March 6, 2000, and was sentenced on March 10, 2000, before Johnson was decided. Ohio courts have held that: [A]n appellant seeking to challenge his pre-Johnson sentencing on the grounds of merger cannot rely on Johnson ‘because “[a] new judicial ruling may be applied only to cases that are pending on the announcement date. * * * The new judicial ruling may not be applied retroactively to a conviction that has become final * * *.”’
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Johnson and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace