State v. Pitts, 2017 Ohio 7467

In 2005 Steve Pitts pleaded guilty to aggravated murder, attempted murder, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping and received a jointly‑recommended sentence: life with parole eligibility after 20 years on aggravated murder and concurrent 10‑year terms on the other counts (aggregate effectively life with parole possible after 20 years).
Pitts did not appeal his 2005 conviction. In 2015 he filed a pro se motion seeking a resentencing hearing, arguing the court failed to impose postrelease control on the non‑murder convictions and that the offenses were allied and should merge.
The trial court appointed counsel, held a hearing limited to imposing mandatory five years of postrelease control, and reimposed the same agreed sentence while advising Pitts about postrelease control.
Pitts argued at the hearing that the offenses were allied offenses of similar import and should have merged; the trial court declined to address merger because the hearing’s scope was postrelease control only.
Pitts appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) sentencing court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 purposes and principles and made insufficient findings; (2) improper postrelease‑control notification; and (3) failure to merge allied offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly notified Pitts of postrelease control	State: notification was proper	Pitts: notification defective	Court: notification was proper; assignment overruled
Whether resentencing complied with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and allowed reconsideration of original sentence	State: resentencing limited to postrelease control only	Pitts: court failed to consider sentencing principles and made required findings	Court: resentencing limited to imposing postrelease control; no review of original valid sentence; assignment overruled
Whether convictions were allied and should have merged (void or voidable)	State: no earlier finding that offenses were allied, so separate sentences not contrary to law; issue is res judicata if not appealed earlier	Pitts: convictions should have merged; original sentences void for failure to merge	Court: failure to merge is voidable, not void; because no finding that offenses were allied then separate sentences imposed, Pitts should have raised merger on direct appeal; claim barred by res judicata; assignment overruled

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (resentencing limited to proper imposition of postrelease control)
State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (2016) (sentence void only when court finds offenses are allied but nonetheless imposes separate sentences)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (discusses timeliness and effect of allied‑offense findings)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (2015) (addresses allied‑offense merger principles)