State v. Chapman, 487 N.E.2d 566 (Ohio 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Chapman, 487 N.E.2d 566 (Ohio 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2016–2021 · …it is well settled that an unarmed accomplice can be convicted of an underlying felony, together with a firearm specification, based on an aider and abettor status. ⚠ not in text
146 citation events (113 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Lewis (ohioctapp, 2025-07-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lewis
Ohio Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
State v. Humphries, 2014-Ohio-1230, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 42-43 (1986), citing State v. Howard, 2012-Ohio-3459, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.) (“It is well settled that an unarmed accomplice can be convicted of an underlying felony, together with a firearm specification, based on an aider and abettor status.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. King
Ohio Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Cuyahoga No. 99924, 2014-Ohio-1230, ¶ 18 , citing State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 42 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Agee
Ohio Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
No. 99924, 2014-Ohio-1230, ¶ 18 , citing State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 42 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Bryant
Ohio Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41, 42 (1986); State v. Johnson, 8th Dist.
discussed Cited "see" In re J.R. (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41 , 487 N.E.2d 566 (1986), syllabus.
discussed Cited "see" In re E.B. (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41 , 487 N.E.2d 566 (1986), syllabus.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Fulton (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Chapman (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 41 , 487 N.E.2d 566 , syllabus; State v. Moore (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 30, 33 , 476 N.E.2d 355 (holding that unarmed accomplice to aggravated robbery is subject to a mandatory three-year term of actual incarceration on a firearm specification).
discussed Cited "see" In Re R.G., 90389 (12-11-2008)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Chapman (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 41 , syllabus; State v. Moore (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 30 , 33 (holding that unarmed accomplice to aggravated robbery is subject to a mandatory three-year term of actual incarceration on a firearm specification). {¶ 74} Thus, the evidence was sufficient to prove that the Harvard Boys were an association with three or more members, had a common name, identifying signs and symbols, and sold marijuana as "one of its primary activities." These facts were adequate to satisfy the first two prongs of the definition of "criminal gang." When it comes to the thir…
discussed Cited "see" State v. Meyers, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2006) (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Chapman (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 41 , 42-43 , 487 N.E.2d 566 . {¶ 43} The fifth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 44} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Wynn (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Chapman (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 41 , 21 OBR 327, 487 N.E.2d 566 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Collins, Unpublished Decision (6-3-1998)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chapman, supra. Collins argues that R.C. 2151.26 (B)(4)(b) is a civil statute and should not be read to include the criminal concept of complicity, whereby an accomplice is liable to the same degree as the principle.
cited Cited "see" Matter of Foster, Unpublished Decision (5-13-1998)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chapman, supra, at 42 ; State v. Jackson (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 702 , 704 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Turner, Unpublished Decision (5-6-1998)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chapman, supra, at 42 ; State v. Jackson (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 702 , 704 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Gilbert (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 245; see also, State v. Cartellone, 3 Ohio App.3d 145, 148 , 444 N.E.2d 68 (1981). {¶59} “The law is well settled that when two or more people engage in a course of criminal conduct and one does one part and the other another, each is responsible for the acts of the other as though he had personally performed each of the acts.” State v. Wynn, 131 Ohio App.3d 725, 729 , 723 N.E.2d 627 (1998), citing State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41 , 487 N.E.2d 566 (1986). {¶60} The facts of this case reveal that the crime was coordinated so that Appellant would cause Kaluza to have an auto accid…
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Gist, 21436 (10-12-2007)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Chapman (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 41 ; State v. Rhubert (Oct. 12, 2001), Greene App. No. 2001 CA 62.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. MacIas, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2003)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Chapman (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 41 . 4 Although Mrs. Wiley only saw a small part of the object, Slomba testified about seeing what appeared to be real a handgun in a bag later that night.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Curtis, Unpublished Decision (10-8-2002)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
No. 9-02-03. 14 R.C. 2945.71 ; see State v. King (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 669 . 15 Mincy , 2 Ohio St.3d at 8 . 16 State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247 , 251 . 17 See Crim.R. 52(B); State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 ; State v. Smith (June 27, 1995), Franklin App. No. 940APA12-1702. 18 Long , supra, at 94. 19 Id., paragraph 2 of the syllabus; Williford , supra, at 253; State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226 , 227 ; State v. Joseph , (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 450 . 20 See R.C. 2901.01 . 21 State v. Riggins (1986), 35 Ohio App.3d 1 , 8 . 22 See R.C. 2923.03 ; See, also, State v. Cha…
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re Keith, Unpublished Decision (9-25-2001)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
In the Matter of Brandon Foster (May 13, 1998), Lorain App. No. 97CA006766, unreported; see, also, State v. Chapman (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 41 , paragraph one of syllabus.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Jackson (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Moore, 16 Ohio St.3d at 33 , 16 OBR at 412, 476 N.E.2d at 357 ; see, also, Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d at 42-43 , 21 OBR at 327-328, 487 N.E.2d at 567-568 . *705 Upon close review of Chapman and Moore , however, it appears clear that they do not support appellant’s argument by analogy that appellee can be charged as a repeat offender based on the principal offender’s priors.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Chapman
No. 84-1958.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jan 2, 1986.
487 N.E.2d 566
1986 Ohio LEXIS 520
Philip S. Schneider, prosecuting attorney, for appellee., Darrell L. Heckman, for appellant.
Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 74 opinions  |  Published
Wright, J.

This case raises the question of whether an unarmed ac[*42] complice 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[*43] 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.