State v. Lee, 112 N.E.3d 65

Background

Defendant Alijah K. Lee pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea that included a jointly recommended aggregate 14-year prison term made up of minimum terms on multiple counts to be served consecutively.
At plea and sentencing the trial court imposed the jointly recommended consecutive sentences.
On appeal Lee argued the convictions/sentences implicated R.C. 2941.25 (allied offenses/merger) and that imposing multiple sentences for the same conduct was plain error and rendered the sentence unauthorized by law.
The State invoked R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), which bars appellate review of a sentence that is authorized by law, jointly recommended, and imposed by the court.
The court held Lee waived or forfeited the merger claim by agreeing to consecutive sentences and by failing to object at sentencing, concluding the agreed sentences were authorized by law and therefore not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1); the convictions and sentence were affirmed.
A concurring opinion agreed the sentence was not reviewable but emphasized the court must perform a review to determine that non-reviewability (i.e., it examined plain-error arguments before concluding lack of jurisdiction).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lee)	Held
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the agreed-upon sentence under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)	The sentence is jointly recommended, authorized by law, and imposed by the court so R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars review	The sentence is not authorized by law because multiple convictions/sentences are for allied offenses in violation of R.C. 2941.25	Held: No jurisdiction — sentence was authorized by law (waived/forfeited merger), so R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars review; conviction/sentence affirmed
Whether Lee’s convictions for aggravated robbery and kidnapping are allied offenses requiring merger under R.C. 2941.25	No concession that offenses are allied; parties agreed consecutive sentences, which indicates agreement that offenses are separate	These offenses arose from the same conduct and thus are allied; imposing multiple sentences was plain error and contrary to law	Held: Court concluded Lee waived or forfeited the allied-offense claim by agreeing to consecutive sentences and failing to object; thus merger challenge not properly before the court
Whether agreeing to consecutive sentences constitutes waiver of an R.C. 2941.25 challenge	Agreement to consecutive sentences implies consent to separate sentences (waiver of merger) and removes mandatory application of R.C. 2941.25	Waiver cannot be presumed; fundamental rights (double jeopardy) are not lightly waived and Lee did not expressly stipulate separate animus	Held: Agreement to consecutive sentences (and failure to object) was treated as waiver/forfeiture of merger; therefore sentences were authorized
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel invalidates the plea/sentence	Counsel’s alleged failure to advise about possible merger is subsumed in the sentencing agreement; ineffective assistance claim cannot resurrect appealability under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)	Counsel’s advice was deficient and Lee would not have accepted the plea had he known offenses might merge, rendering plea involuntary	Held: Court declined to reach ineffective-assistance merits because sentence was not appealable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1); defendant cannot attack counsel’s failure to object to an agreed sentence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (an agreed sentence is unreviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions)
State v. Noling, 136 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2013) (R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) limits appellate jurisdiction over agreed sentences)
State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2016) (agreed consecutive sentences are authorized if defendant consents; distinguishes mandatory vs. discretionary sentencing provisions)
State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 2016) (failure to merge allied offenses renders sentence contrary to law and void; court may correct void sentences)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (defendant forfeits allied-offense claim by failing to raise it at sentencing; plain-error review applies on appeal)
State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2017) (plea bargains trade appellate limitations for prosecutorial concessions; courts should respect plea bargain stability)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (a sentence that is contrary to law may be reviewed at any time)