State v. Martin, 2012 Ohio 4919

Appellant Antoine Martin appeals a resentencing entry in Summit County following this Court's 2011 ruling.
The 2011 decision vacated the 2010 sentencing entry for postrelease-control deficiencies and remanded for resentencing to notify and impose postrelease control, leaving the original sentences intact.
Martin had been convicted of felony murder, felonious assault, and involuntary manslaughter; the trial court previously merged offenses and then failed to properly address postrelease control.
On remand, the trial court issued a new sentencing entry mirroring the 1997 judgment and added postrelease-control language.
Martin argues the offenses are allied offenses of similar import and thus cannot be separately convicted and sentenced, and he challenges the scope of the resentencing appeal.
The appellate court overrules Martin’s assignment of error and affirms the resentencing judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the offenses allied offenses of similar import?	Martin argues the three offenses are allied offenses of similar import.	Martin contends convictions violate double jeopardy; they should not be prosecuted together.	Issue is without merit; allied-offense concern not properly reviewable on resentencing.
Scope of appeal on resentencing	Limited to postrelease-control issues from resentencing.	No broader review of allied-offense issues permitted on resentencing.	Court held the scope limited to postrelease-control matters; allied-offense issues not reviewable here.

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (limited scope of resentencing to postrelease-control issues)
Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (superior court mandate controls inferior court on remand; limited discretion)