State v. Robinson, 2015 Ohio 3329

In 2003, a jury convicted Robinson of aggravated murder, murder, aggravated robbery, having weapons while under disability, and carrying a concealed weapon; he also pled guilty to felonious assault and was sentenced to life with parole after 38 years.
On direct appeal, this Court found the guilty plea defective but affirmed the other convictions and sentences.
On remand, Robinson re-pleaded guilty to felonious assault; he did not appeal that conviction or sentence.
In September 2014, Robinson moved to vacate the judgment, arguing his sentence violated RC 2941.25 by merging allied offenses and asking for remand so the State could select a surviving offense.
The trial court treated the motion as a petition for post-conviction relief and denied it as untimely; Robinson appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmatively held that the sentence was not void, rejected the merger-based challenge, ruled the court lacked authority to hear merits of the merger issue as a successive PCR, and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying the motion to vacate where allied offenses were allegedly merged.	Robinson argues the sentence is void for failing to merge allied offenses.	State contends the sentence is not void and merger issues are improperly raised in a post-conviction context.	No void sentence; motion validly treated as PCR petition, but merits not reviewable.
Whether the State failed to elect which count survived merger, affecting finality of sentencing entries.	Robinson asserts error due to lack of election after merger finding.	State did not elect surviving offense in a proper procedural posture.	Court lacked authority to address merger merits as the petition was successive PCR.
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the merger on direct appeal.	Evitts/Strickland standard showed ineffective assistance.	Ineffectiveness claim not properly before court.	Ineffectiveness issue not addressed; affirmed on other grounds.

Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (2014-Ohio-1052) (controls timing for challenging void judgments and merger issues)
State v. Abuhilwa, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25300, 2010-Ohio-5997 (2010-Ohio-5997) (non-voidity of non-merger errors in allied offenses)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526, 2013-Ohio-5014 (2013-Ohio-5014) (allied offenses and merger standards clarified by Ohio Supreme Court)
State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (trial court authority to hear PCR petitions)
Maumee v. Geiger, 45 Ohio St.2d 238 () (finality of sentencing entries after merger determinations)
State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2010-Ohio-) (finality and merger implications in sentencing)
State v. Harris, 122 Ohio St.3d 373 (2010-Ohio-) (merger and sentencing considerations)
Stekelenburg, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24825, 2010-Ohio-219 (2010-Ohio-219) (procedural posture and appellate review limitations)
Holmes, State v. Holmes, 2014-Ohio-3816 (2014-Ohio-3816) (merger guidance in sentencing)