State v. Pedraza, 2020 Ohio 2661

Benjamin Pedraza (30) had a relationship with T.B. (16); they filmed two sexually explicit videos in a Brunswick hotel using T.B.’s phone.
T.B.’s mother discovered explicit communications, gave T.B.’s phone to police, and Pedraza was indicted on two counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor (R.C. 2907.322(A)(1)).
A jury convicted Pedraza on both second-degree felony counts; the trial court ordered a PSI, imposed concurrent five-year prison terms, and classified him a Tier II sex offender.
On appeal Pedraza raised three assignments of error: (1) allied-offenses/double jeopardy (merger of the two counts), (2) sentencing errors (reliance on facts not in record and failure to consider R.C. 2929.12), and (3) ineffective assistance / Fourth Amendment challenge to admission of phone evidence.
The Ninth District affirmed the convictions and sentences, rejecting merger/plain-error, finding the record supported sentencing findings, and holding counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a meritless suppression motion (Pedraza lacked standing to challenge the victim’s phone search).

Issue	Pedraza's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the two pandering convictions are allied offenses requiring merger (double jeopardy)	The two videos were made in the same time frame with a single animus and should merge	Each video was separately created/recorded; creating/saving each file is a distinct act with separate animus; trial court made no allied-offense finding so sentence is voidable not void	Affirmed: offenses not allied; separate convictions/sentences permitted; no plain error shown
Whether sentencing relied on facts not in the record and failed to consider R.C. 2929.12	Court relied on unsupported findings (e.g., "manipulation," "serious psychological harm") and did not consider recidivism factors	Victim’s and mother’s statements plus the PSI supported the court’s factual statements; court expressly referenced consideration of 2929.12 and related statutes	Affirmed: record supports sentencing findings; no clear-and-convincing basis to modify sentence
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress cell-phone evidence / Fourth Amendment	Counsel should have moved to suppress phone evidence because the mother’s consent was invalid	Fourth Amendment rights are personal to the phone owner (T.B.); Pedraza lacked standing, so suppression motion would be meritless; declining to file it was not deficient	Affirmed: no deficient performance; ineffective-assistance claim fails (no standing / meritless motion)

State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (defines when failure to merge allied offenses yields void vs. voidable sentence)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (articulates conduct/animus/import test for allied offenses)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (R.C. 2941.25 and double jeopardy framework)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (Fourth Amendment suppression may only be asserted by those whose rights were violated)
State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126 (animus defined as immediate motive)
State v. Brown, 115 Ohio St.3d 55 (failure to file suppression motion not per se ineffective assistance)