State v. Champion, 2022 Ohio 3146

Champion was indicted on aggravated murder, murder, felony murder, felonious assault, and weapons-under-disability; several counts carried three-year firearm specifications.
After a jury mistrial, Champion entered a plea: guilty to reduced involuntary manslaughter (count 3) with a 3-year firearm spec, guilty to felonious assault (count 4) with a 3-year firearm spec, and guilty to having weapons while under disability (count 5); remaining charges were dismissed.
The written plea agreement recommended an agreed aggregate sentence of 19 years: counts 3 and 4 (and their firearm specs) to be served consecutively; count 5 concurrent.
At the plea hearing Champion (through counsel) expressly stipulated that counts 3 and 4 were not allied and were committed with separate animus; the trial court accepted the plea and imposed the joint 19-year sentence.
On appeal Champion argued (1) counts 3 and 4 were allied and should have merged, (2) the attendant firearm specifications should have merged, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for agreeing to the stipulation and consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether involuntary manslaughter (count 3) and felonious assault (count 4) were allied offenses requiring merger	State: Plea and sentence were lawful because defendant waived review by plea agreement and stipulation that offenses were separate	Champion: The offenses arose from the same conduct and victim and therefore were allied and should merge	Overruled — Champion expressly stipulated separate animus and agreed to consecutive sentences, waiving the R.C. 2941.25 merger claim
Whether firearm specifications attendant to counts 3 and 4 should merge	State: Firearm specs follow the underlying offenses; stipulation to separate animus applies to specs too	Champion: If underlying offenses are allied, the firearm specs must also merge and not be consecutive	Overruled — firearm specifications are sentencing provisions contingent on underlying offenses; stipulation waived merger of specs
Whether counsel was ineffective for negotiating the plea and stipulation	State: Counsel obtained a plea that avoided potential life sentences; Champion knowingly accepted and signed the agreement	Champion: Counsel performed deficiently by agreeing that clearly allied offenses be sentenced consecutively	Overruled — counsel’s performance was objectively reasonable in securing the plea; Champion failed to show he would have rejected the deal and insisted on trial

State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (explains allied-offense merger rule and when sentences jointly recommended are reviewable)
State v. Rogers, 38 N.E.3d 860 (Ohio 2015) (defendant may waive R.C. 2941.25 protections by stipulating separate animus in plea agreement)
State v. Ford, 945 N.E.2d 498 (Ohio 2011) (firearm specification is a sentencing enhancement, not a separate offense)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in the guilty-plea context)