State v. Nava, 2015 Ohio 5053

In July 2012 Nava was indicted for fourth-degree felonies: Theft of Drugs and Receiving Stolen Property for taking hydrocodone pills from an acquaintance.
Nava pleaded guilty and was granted Intervention in Lieu of Conviction in January 2013; the court deferred conviction pending successful completion.
Intervention was later revoked after multiple supervision violations (positive drug tests, failure to report, absconding); the trial court entered findings of guilt and placed Nava on community control in November 2014, warning that further violation could result in a 17-month prison term for each count to be served concurrently.
Nava admitted additional community-control violations in 2015; the court revoked community control on July 17, 2015 and imposed the concurrent 17-month sentences.
On appeal Nava argued (1) the two convictions were allied offenses of similar import and should have been merged, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise merger at sentencing.

Issue	State's Argument	Nava's Argument	Held
Whether Theft and Receiving Stolen Property (same item, date, victim) are allied offenses requiring merger	State (appellee) argues issue is barred because Nava failed to raise it on direct appeal from the November 19, 2014 conviction	Nava: offenses are allied and must be merged; resentencing required	Court: barred by res judicata because Nava did not timely appeal the November 2014 conviction; no merger relief on this appeal
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not raising merger at sentencing	State: ineffective-assistance claim that could have been raised on direct appeal is barred by res judicata	Nava: counsel was ineffective for failing to object to non-merger	Court: claim is barred by res judicata for same reason; overruling ineffective-assistance claim

Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (establishes res judicata bars post-conviction collateral attacks when issues could have been raised on direct appeal)