State v. Frazier, 2021 Ohio 4155

In Sept. 2008 Frazier fired shots at a car containing his sister, Jasmine, and her boyfriend, James Swain; neither occupant was physically injured. Swain returned fire.
Jury convicted Frazier of two counts of felonious assault (with firearm specifications) and one count of having weapons while under disability.
Trial court merged the firearm specifications but imposed consecutive terms: three years on the firearm spec (mandatory), two eight-year terms for felonious assault, and five years for weapons-under-disability, for a 24-year aggregate sentence.
Frazier’s direct appeal was unsuccessful. He later filed multiple post-conviction/resentencing motions (2009, 2016, 2019) challenging indictment amendments, allied-offense merger, and sentence; those were denied and not all were appealed.
In 2021 Frazier filed an application to vacate convictions, arguing allied-offense merger (single criminal adventure) and ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate/raise merger; conspiracy/fraud on the court).
Trial court denied the 2021 motion as barred by res judicata and on the merits; the appellate court affirmed, concluding the felonious-assault counts involved separate victims and weapons-under-disability did not merge with assault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two felonious-assault counts should merge as allied offenses	Frazier: offenses arose from a single criminal adventure and common purpose, so they are allied	State: counts involved separate victims (sister and Swain), so dissimilar import	Court: No merger; separate victims = dissimilar import, convictions may stand separately
Whether having weapons while under disability should merge with felonious assault	Frazier: implied that all charges flowed from same conduct and should be merged	State: different animus for possession vs. assault; generally dissimilar	Court: No merger; possession and assault have different animus; merger not required (Fairman limited exception not applicable)
Whether claims are procedurally barred by res judicata	Frazier: renewed allied-offense and ineffective-assistance claims should be considered	State: arguments were or could have been raised earlier and are barred	Court: Barred by res judicata (claims available on direct appeal or prior post-conviction motions)

State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (three-part allied-offense test: import, separation, animus)
State v. Earley, 49 N.E.3d 266 (Ohio 2015) (quoting Ruff and applying allied-offense framework)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995) (res judicata bars later actions arising from same transaction)
State v. Perry, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata rules for criminal defendants)
State v. Johnson, 942 N.E.2d 1061 (Ohio 2010) (allied-offense jurisprudence referenced by defendant)
State v. Fritz, 912 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio App.) (Double Jeopardy and allied-offense statutory purpose)