State v. Grose, 2014 Ohio 4499

In 2012, Allando Grose pled no contest to kidnapping, extortion, aggravated robbery, and tampering with evidence; trial court imposed an aggregate 12-year sentence. Two other counts were dismissed.
On direct appeal (Grose I), this Court found the record insufficient to resolve whether some offenses were allied under Ohio law and remanded for an allied‑offense hearing so Grose could elect which allied offenses to pursue at resentencing.
On remand the trial court reviewed a cell‑phone video, held an allied‑offense hearing, and concluded the kidnapping, extortion, and aggravated robbery were not allied (separate animus); it was less certain about tampering with evidence.
At the March 26, 2014 resentencing hearing the court reiterated its allied‑offense findings but then changed the original sentence by running terms concurrently rather than consecutively.
The State appealed, arguing the remand was limited to an allied‑offense determination and, because the court found no allied offenses, the original October 8, 2012 sentencing entry remained valid and the trial court had no authority to alter it.
The appellate court agreed with the State, vacated the March 26, 2014 re‑sentencing entry, and reinstated the original October 8, 2012 sentencing entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could re‑sentence after a remand limited to an allied‑offense determination	The remand was limited to an allied‑offense hearing; once the court found no allied offenses, the original sentence remained valid and could not be altered	The court could conduct a full de novo resentencing after the allied‑offense hearing and modify concurrent/consecutive runs	The remand was limited to determining allied offenses; because the court found no allied offenses, it lacked authority to alter the previously valid sentence — re‑sentencing entry vacated and original sentence reinstated

State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 2010) (remand for allied‑offense determination leaves valid guilty verdicts and sentences intact unless error affected them)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2006) (sentences unaffected by the appealed error are not vacated and are not subject to review)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (Ohio 2011) (when offenses are merged and the state elects which to pursue, trial court must hold a new sentencing hearing for remaining offenses)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (framework for determining whether offenses are allied under Ohio law)