State v. Johnson, 2011 Ohio 4954

Charles Johnson pleaded guilty to attempted intimidation of a crime victim or witness and to menacing by stalking.
He was sentenced to 18 months on each count, to be served consecutively.
He argued the sentences violated double jeopardy because they arose from a postrelease-control (PRC) violation in a prior case.
Johnson was serving 120 days for PRC violation in a separate case when he harassed the victim again, leading to new offenses.
The State faced allegations concerning indictment sufficiency, venue, merger/ allied offenses, and sentencing discretion.
The appellate court affirmed, addressing each assigned error and upholding the judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy from PRC violation and new offenses	Johnson's PRC violation and new offenses overlapped, violating protections against double jeopardy.	Conduct forming the PRC violation was the same as the new offenses, constituting double jeopardy.	No double jeopardy violation; new offenses were independent from PRC violation.
Whether intimidation and stalking are allied offenses	Intimidation and stalking are not allied offenses under applicable standards.	The two counts may be allied because they arose from same conduct.	Not allied; offenses not proven to be the same conduct; not the same timing undermines allied status.
Conviction for attempted intimidation	Attempted intimidation is a cognizable offense distinct from the underlying attempt offense.	Attempted intimidation improperly doubles the offense or lowers substantive offense.	No manifest error; plea to attempted intimidation benefitted Johnson by lowering degree, which is permissible.
Venue in Lorain County interactions	Calls and mail originated from Lorain County, affecting venue.	Plea limits challenge to factual venue issues.	Venue challenge summarily overruled; plea precludes challenging factual venue on appeal.
Consecutive sentences and fact-finding	Consecutive sentences require factual findings by the court.	No mandatory findings required before imposing consecutive sentences.	Consecutive sentences upheld; no statutory requirement for factual findings prior to imposition.

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (defining allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25(A))
State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999) (overruled Wallace; allied offenses analysis refined)
State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995) (plain-error review for ineffective assistance and plea issues)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (consecutive-sentence findings not required absent new legislation)