State v. Dominguez, 2016 Ohio 5051

David Dominguez pled guilty in 2009 to one count of aggravated vehicular homicide, three counts of vehicular assault, and two counts of aggravated assault and was sentenced to a total of 10 years. He did not file a direct appeal.
Beginning in 2012, Dominguez filed multiple pro se motions in the trial court (motions to vacate, for resentencing, and under Crim.R. 52(B)) arguing that some convictions were allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25 and should have merged.
The trial court denied his 2012 motion to vacate and later overruled subsequent post-conviction motions raising the allied-offense claim, concluding res judicata barred the claims.
Dominguez relied on State v. Rogers and argued the record shows a reasonable probability his offenses were allied and that the trial court’s failure to hold a merger inquiry was plain error under Crim.R. 52(B).
The appellate court affirmed, holding it could not consider the allied-offense argument in these post-conviction motions because Dominguez could have raised the issue on direct appeal; res judicata therefore bars his claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allied-offense/merger challenge may be raised in Dominguez's post-conviction motions	State: Res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal; failure to merge is voidable, not void	Dominguez: Trial court’s failure to conduct a merger hearing was plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) (relying on Rogers); record shows reasonable probability of allied offenses	Affirmed: Res judicata bars the allied-offense challenge in these post-conviction motions because Dominguez could have raised it on direct appeal

State v. Rogers, 38 N.E.3d 860 (Ohio 2015) (on direct appeal, defendant must show reasonable probability that convictions are allied to establish plain error from failure to inquire about merger)
State v. Johnson, 942 N.E.2d 1061 (Ohio 2010) (articulated allied-offense analysis for merger under R.C. 2941.25)