State v. Nickelson, 2020 Ohio 1149

Nickelson was federally indicted (Nov 3, 2015) and pled guilty (Jan 11, 2016) to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone covering conduct through October 2015; he received an 87‑month federal sentence (Mar 4, 2016).
Belmont County charged Nickelson (Nov 5, 2015) with two state trafficking counts (cocaine and oxycodone) arising from events on Oct 14–15, 2015 tied to searches of two motel rooms that produced oxycodone, cash, and cocaine.
Nickelson entered no‑contest pleas in state court (June 2016); the state sentence (11 years for cocaine, 8 years for oxycodone) was ordered concurrent with each other but consecutive to the federal sentence; $9,190.50 was forfeited.
In July 2019 Nickelson filed a pro se post‑sentence motion to withdraw his plea arguing R.C. 2925.50 barred the state prosecution because he had already been convicted federally for the same act; the trial court denied the motion.
The Seventh District reversed: it held R.C. 2925.50’s phrase "same act" means "same conduct," concluded Nickelson’s federal conviction encompassed the October 14, 2015 conduct, found a manifest injustice, granted the motion to withdraw, vacated convictions and forfeiture, and barred further state prosecution for that conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Nickelson’s post‑sentence motion to withdraw his no‑contest plea because R.C. 2925.50 bars the state prosecution when a federal conviction exists for the same act	State: dual‑sovereignty permits separate prosecutions; state prosecutions here are legitimate and unrelated to federal case	Nickelson: federal conspiracy conviction covered the same conduct (Oct 14, 2015), so R.C. 2925.50 bars the state prosecution and renders the state sentence void	Court: "same act" means "same conduct;" federal conviction covered Oct 14, 2015 conduct; denial was an abuse of discretion; granted motion; convictions and forfeiture vacated; state barred from prosecuting that conduct
Whether Nickelson received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move for acquittal under R.C. 2925.50	State: claim raised first on appeal, not preserved below, so forfeited	Nickelson: trial counsel should have raised R.C. 2925.50 and sought acquittal	Court: declined to reach on appeal because the ineffective‑assistance claim was raised for the first time on appeal and was not presented below

State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (postsentence plea withdrawal standard and burden to show manifest injustice)
State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1998) (definition of "manifest injustice")
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same‑elements test for distinguishing offenses)
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (U.S. 2016) (dual‑sovereignty doctrine explained)
State v. Hansen, 627 N.W.2d 195 (Wis. 2001) (interpreting the UCSA phrase "same act" to mean "same conduct")
People v. Zubke, 664 N.W.2d 751 (Mich. 2003) (contrasting approach treating "same act" via statutory elements)