State v. Dendinger, 2023 Ohio 4255

Dendinger was ordered into the PIVOT program and missed an Aftercare Support Group on Sept. 2, 2022; she submitted a medical excuse claiming urgent-care treatment that day.
Urgent Care records showed a telehealth visit on Sept. 10, 2022; staff said the note’s date appeared altered to Sept. 2 and "Dr." was added before the signatory’s name.
Dendinger signed a release for medical records; police investigated and charged her with tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(2)) and perjury (R.C. 2921.11(A)).
She pleaded guilty to both third-degree felonies; the trial court imposed consecutive prison terms.
On appeal she argued (1) the convictions should merge under R.C. 2941.25/double jeopardy, (2) consecutive sentences were disproportionate/not supported by statutory findings, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to merger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dendinger)	Held
Whether tampering with evidence and perjury must merge under R.C. 2941.25/double jeopardy	Offenses arise from distinct conduct (falsifying/using the altered note earlier vs. giving false testimony under oath); therefore dissimilar import and convictions may stand	The document was not "presented" until she authenticated it under oath; the perjury and tampering were the same act and should merge	Court: No merger. Tampering (making/using falsified note) occurred before oath and perjury occurred under oath; offenses committed separately → no plain error.
Whether consecutive sentences are supported by statutory findings and proportionate	Trial court made required findings (necessity to protect/punish, proportionality) and relied on PSR and the defendant’s prior history/failed rehabilitation	Consecutive terms are disproportionate and the court’s findings are unsupported by the record	Court: Findings were made and are supported by the record; consecutive sentences affirmed.
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to merger at sentencing	Counsel need not raise meritless claims; failure to object to a nonmeritorious merger claim is not ineffective assistance	Failure to object to merger was deficient and prejudicial	Court: Not ineffective. Merger argument lacked merit, so counsel’s omission was not deficient nor prejudicial.

State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2941.25 codifies Ohio’s allied-offense/double jeopardy analysis)
State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (analyze the defendant’s conduct to determine merger; offenses may be convicted if dissimilar import, separate conduct, or separate animus)
State v. Bailey, 218 N.E.3d 858 (Ohio 2022) (plain-error standard applies if no merger objection made at trial)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test comparing statutory elements for federal double-jeopardy cumulative-punishment questions)
Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1981) (multiple punishments permissible where legislature clearly intended them)
State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make findings for consecutive sentences; reasons need not be stated on the record in detail)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate reversal of sentence only on clear-and-convincing showing under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Mutter, 82 N.E.3d 1141 (Ohio 2017) (double-jeopardy protections summarized under state and federal constitutions)