State v. Esper, 2017 Ohio 7069

In March 2016, Douglas Esper was indicted on three counts arising from injuries to his four‑month‑old son: felonious assault and two counts of child endangering.
Esper pleaded guilty to felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)) and one count of child endangering with serious‑harm under R.C. 2919.22(B)(1); the other child‑endangering count (R.C. 2919.22(A)) was dismissed under the plea.
The conduct underlying both convictions was the same act: shaking the infant on February 19, 2016, causing serious physical harm; the dismissed count concerned a subsequent failure to seek timely medical care.
At sentencing the trial court refused to merge the two convictions, finding a separate animus, and imposed consecutive terms totaling 11 years (8 + 3).
On appeal Esper argued the two convictions are allied offenses of similar import and must merge; he also raised an ineffective‑assistance claim about sentencing advice.

Issue	State's Argument	Esper's Argument	Held
Whether felonious assault and child endangering (R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)) are allied offenses requiring merger	Offenses are distinct under controlling precedent (trial court relied on Porosky) and do not merge	Both convictions arise from the same conduct and same animus (shaking causing serious harm); thus they are allied and must merge	Reversed: convictions merge; trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences; remanded for merger and election by the state
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise on maximum sentence	N/A (state did not contest in opinion summary)	Counsel allegedly failed to advise Esper properly about maximum exposure	Declared moot because merger claim was sustained

State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (2012) (standard for appellate review when allied‑offense issue raised below)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (focus on defendant’s conduct and Ruff framework for allied offenses)
State v. Earley, 145 Ohio St.3d 281 (2015) (Johnson lead opinion analysis largely obsolete after Ruff)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (prior allied‑offense framework discussed and limited by later cases)
State v. Kamel, 12 Ohio St.3d 306 (1984) (distinguishing R.C. 2919.22(A) neglect from 2919.22(B) affirmative physical abuse)
State v. Sammons, 58 Ohio St.2d 460 (1979) (affirmative act element for R.C. 2919.22(B))