State v. McIntyre, 2012 Ohio 5657

McIntyre was indicted in 2009 on tampering with evidence, petty theft, and obstructing justice, with a supplemental indictment adding tampering with records and another obstructing justice charge.
A jury convicted McIntyre on most charges afterCrim.R. 29 relief regarding obstructing justice was granted on that count.
This Court on direct appeal (McIntyre I) overruled several assignments and sustained one, voided the obstructing-justice conviction for missing degree on the verdict form, and remanded for resentencing.
On remand, the trial court held that tampering with evidence and tampering with records merged for sentencing, and proceeded on the tampering-with-evidence conviction for a 36-month term and 6 months for obstructing justice.
McIntyre challenged the resentencing in a second appeal (McIntyre II); this Court remanded again to apply Johnson for allied-offense considerations, determining other issues could be addressed post Johnson.
On this final appeal, the court sustains the first assignment of error, which concerns allied-offense sentencing, and remands for Johnson-based reconsideration; other assignments are moot or were overruled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are McIntyre's sentences for allied offenses plain error?	McIntyre argues allied-offense sentencing violates 2941.25.	McIntyre contends Johnson requires reconsideration of possible mergers.	First assignment sustained; remand for allied-offense determination required.
Was the Crim.R. 29 acquittal issue properly preserved or moot on remand?	McIntyre argues relief should be available; previously acquitted issue remains relevant.	State argues issues were resolved on first appeal and cannot be re-litigated.	Moot; issues II and III moot due to Johnson remand ruling.
Did the court err by failing to address sentencing findings under 2929.11/2929.12 in the resentence?	McIntyre asserts improper findings for a 36-month non-violent felony term.	Findings addressed only upon proper remand; not addressed since issue moot.	Moot; related issues were resolved by the first-assignment ruling.
Did the court have jurisdiction to resentence given post-release-term concerns?	McIntyre argues post-release-control authority expired.	Court had authority while awaiting resentencing; credit time served matters.	Overruled; court's authority affirmed.

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (applies Johnson allied-offense framework on remand)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011-Ohio-2669) (limits on multiple punishments for allied offenses)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-1) (plain-error framework for allied-offense sentencing)