State v. Crum, 2017 Ohio 9000

In 1997 a jury convicted Shane Crum of rape, felonious sexual penetration, and gross sexual imposition; the trial court imposed consecutive sentences producing an aggregate life term.
Crum appealed; this court affirmed the convictions and rejection of his allied‑offenses/merger claim on direct appeal in 1998; the Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
Crum filed a postconviction petition in 2004 alleging newly discovered evidence; the trial court denied it and this court affirmed in 2005.
On June 8, 2017, Crum filed a motion to correct a void sentence arguing the trial court failed to conduct a statutory merger hearing under R.C. 2941.25 and thus the consecutive sentences were void.
The trial court summarily denied the June 2017 motion; Crum appealed and the appellate court affirmed, holding the claim barred by res judicata and that the filing was an untimely/successive petition under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying Crum's motion without findings	State: denial was appropriate; res judicata and postconviction rules bar relitigation	Crum: trial court failed to provide reasoned decision or findings, violating due process	Court: denial affirmed; no error in summary denial (res judicata/successive petition)
Whether convictions are allied offenses requiring merger under R.C. 2941.25	State: trial court previously found offenses not allied and imposed separate sentences; that determination stands	Crum: offenses arose from same conduct/timeframe/victim and thus should have merged; consecutive sentences void	Court: issue was raised on direct appeal and decided against Crum; res judicata bars relitigation
Whether a merger hearing was required at sentencing or on motion	State: no new requirement; prior adjudication and instructions sufficed	Crum: court’s failure to conduct a merger hearing violated statutory and constitutional rights	Court: no relief — prior findings and appeal foreclose claim; any error must have been raised on direct appeal
Whether the 2017 filing was a permissible collateral attack or a postconviction petition	State: filing qualifies as postconviction relief and is untimely/successive under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23	Crum: filing was not a postconviction petition but a motion to correct void sentence	Court: filing is a postconviction petition; it is untimely and successive, so it may be denied summarily

State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 2016) (discusses effect of trial court findings on allied‑offense sentencing and res judicata)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars relitigation of issues raised or that could have been raised on appeal)
Mosely v. Echols, 62 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1991) (treats allied offenses and sentencing consequences when court makes or omits findings)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (Ohio 2013) (principles on when sentencing errors must be raised on direct appeal)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (clarifies allied‑offense analysis and consequences of court findings)