State v. Black, 2016 Ohio 383

Background

Defendant Chardon Black was indicted on attempted murder, felonious assault, domestic violence, and kidnapping after a June 12, 2013 incident in which the victim, his then-girlfriend Natasha Parish, suffered multiple serious injuries.
Black pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to felonious assault (Count 2) and domestic violence (Count 3); remaining counts were nolled.
The parties agreed to and the trial court imposed an "agreed" aggregate prison term of 4 years, 10 months, with the parties and court stating on the record that the two convictions would not merge and that sentences would run consecutively (4 years + 10 months).
This court remanded for a corrected journal entry because the original entry used a blanket aggregate sentence rather than separate sentences; the trial court issued a corrected entry reflecting separate sentences and that the defendant agreed the counts would not merge.
On appeal Black argued (1) the felonious assault and domestic violence convictions were allied offenses of similar import and should have merged, and (2) the imposed consecutive sentences were unauthorized by law if the offenses merged.
The trial record showed the assault in the bedroom, a break when the victim escaped out a second-story window onto the roof, and a subsequent act where Black allegedly pushed or threw the victim off the roof — facts the court treated as separate acts causing separate identifiable harms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether felonious assault and domestic violence are allied offenses that must merge under R.C. 2941.25	State: Parties expressly agreed they were not allied; separate conduct and harm support convictions on both counts	Black: Offenses arose from the same encounter and single course of conduct and therefore are allied and must merge	Held: Waiver/forfeiture; defendant agreed at plea/sentencing that counts would not merge, and record shows separate acts causing separate harms — no merger required
Whether an agreed, joint-recommended sentence is reviewable as "not authorized by law" because it included consecutive terms for allied offenses	State: Agreed sentence is authorized where defendant and state consent and sentence comports with law; parties waived allied-offense claim	Black: Under Underwood, allied-offense error renders agreed sentences appealable as unauthorized by law	Held: Under Underwood a defendant may appeal allied-offense error, but here the defendant waived/forfeited the claim by agreeing on the record that counts would not merge; no plain error shown
Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to sua sponte merge allied offenses when sentencing an agreed plea	State: No plain error — records show separate conduct/animus and defendant failed to prove reasonable probability of merger	Black: Trial court should have merged offenses regardless of plea comments	Held: No plain error — defendant failed to show reasonable probability that the convictions were allied; record supports separate harms and animus
Whether consecutive sentences were unauthorized if counts should have merged	State: Consecutive sentences valid because counts did not merge (waived/forfeited)	Black: Consecutive terms exceed lawful maximum if counts merged	Held: Because merger was waived/forfeited and no plain error, consecutive agreed sentences were authorized and affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (a defendant may appeal an agreed sentence if multiple convictions are allied offenses in violation of R.C. 2941.25; parties may stipulate separate animus to avoid merger)
State v. Rogers, 38 N.E.3d 860 (Ohio 2015) (failure to raise allied‑offense merger in trial court forfeits all but plain error; defendant must show reasonable probability convictions are allied to prevail on plain-error review)
State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (allied‑offense analysis requires evaluating conduct, animus, and import)
State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (forfeiture principles in criminal appeals; plain-error framework applies to unraised issues)
State v. Washington, 999 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 2013) (R.C. 2941.25 is primary indicator of legislative intent regarding multiple punishments)