State v. Pulliam
2017 Ohio 127
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Lenward Pulliam pled guilty under a negotiated plea to two first‑degree trafficking counts (heroin and oxycodone with a major‑drug‑offender specification); remaining counts were dismissed. Agreed sentence: 18 years (11 + 7 consecutive).
- On direct appeal Pulliam challenged consecutive sentencing and ineffective assistance; the Fourth District affirmed, noting the sentence was part of a negotiated, agreed plea and thus not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D).
- Thirteen months later Pulliam filed a Crim.R. 52(B) motion for re‑sentencing arguing: (1) trial court failed to make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive‑sentence findings; (2) counts 3 and 5 were allied offenses and the court should have held a merger hearing; and (3) the court failed to make findings on the major drug offender specification.
- The trial court denied the motion (rejecting some claims on the merits and holding the allied‑offenses claim barred by res judicata). Pulliam appealed that denial.
- The Fourth District affirmed, holding each claim barred by res judicata (and emphasizing that jointly recommended/agreed sentences are authorized by law and not subject to collateral challenge here).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pulliam) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not making R.C. 2929.14 consecutive‑sentence findings | Res judicata bars re‑litigation; jointly recommended/agreed sentence is authorized by law | Trial court failed to make statutorily required consecutive‑sentence findings | Overruled — barred by res judicata; Sergent/Supreme Court authority supports that jointly‑recommended sentences are authorized and not reviewable |
| Whether counts 3 and 5 are allied offenses requiring merger/hearing | Argument could have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore barred by res judicata | Counts 3 and 5 are allied offenses of similar import and should have merged for sentencing | Overruled — barred by res judicata; failure to raise on direct appeal precludes relief (Williams/Holdcroft framework explained) |
| Whether court erred by not making findings for the major drug offender specification | No statutory finding requirement for the specification in this context; alternatively, argument is barred by res judicata | Court failed to make required R.C. 2929.19 findings before imposing major‑drug‑offender portion | Overruled — barred by res judicata; no authority shows such failure makes sentence void, and plea to the specification waives jury‑finding objection |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taylor, 5 N.E.3d 612 (Ohio 2014) (sets R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Szefcyk, 671 N.E.2d 233 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars collateral re‑litigation of claims raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Holdcroft, 1 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2013) (limitations on void‑sentence doctrine for allied‑offense sentencing challenges)
- State v. Sergent, 38 N.E.3d 461 (Ohio 2015) (addressed whether jointly recommended sentences require consecutive‑sentence findings; informs scope of review for agreed sentences)