State v. Ayers, 2012 Ohio 6038

Ayers was indicted on ten counts of violating a protection order under R.C. 2919.27(A)(1).
On June 22, 2011, Ayers pleaded guilty to Counts 1–5; Counts 6–10 were dismissed; he received an aggregate three-year sentence with Counts 1–3 concurrent and Counts 4–5 consecutive to those, as part of a negotiated plea.
The court did not order a pre-sentence investigation and sentenced Ayers immediately after the pleas.
An amended judgment entry corrected the sentencing date; Ayers did not file a direct appeal within 30 days of the judgment.
In April 2012 Ayers moved to correct an illegal sentence arguing allied-offense merger; the trial court denied the motion.
In May 2012 Ayers sought leave to appeal the sentence; this court granted leave to appeal over the State’s motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court err in imposing sentence without proper statutory consideration?	Ayers asserts the court failed to consider all relevant felony-sentencing factors.	Ayers contends the court neglected seriousness factors and other mandatory provisions.	No reversible error; Ayers agreed to the sentence, eliminating need for further justification.
Were the Counts 1–5 allied offenses of similar import requiring merger?	Ayers argues the counts were allied offenses and should have merged.	Ayers contends merger was required since the offenses were related to the same state of mind.	Not allied offenses; five offenses occurred on different dates, and merger was not required.
Is the agreed sentence reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)?	Ayers claims the sentence could be reviewed despite the plea agreement.	State asserts the sentence was jointly recommended and imposed, thus unreviewable under 2953.08(D)(1).	Agreed sentence not reviewable under 2953.08(D)(1) when three conditions are met; the court upheld not reviewable.

State v. Haney, 2007-Ohio-5174 (Greene App. No. 06CA105) (where defendant stipulates sentence, no further justification necessary)
State v. Little, 2009-Ohio-4328 (Greene No. 2008-CA-76) (agreed sentence may foreclose appeal on sentencing issues)
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-278 (Ohio) (three conditions for unwarranted review of joint sentencing; merger context)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (defining allied offenses and merger analysis under 2941.25)
Latson, 133 Ohio App.3d 475 (1999) (remand for merger determination when offenses may be allied)
State v. Kuhbander, 2012-Ohio-5315 (Montgomery No. 24424) (merger and allied offenses analysis framework)
State v. Hale, 2012-Ohio-2662 (Clark No. 11 CA 33) (punitive-sentencing review considerations)