State v. Rouse, 2018 Ohio 3266

Darwain Rouse was indicted for aggravated robbery, felonious assault, weapons under disability, obstructing official business, and tampering with evidence; he pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and two firearm specifications under a plea agreement.
Parties agreed to a joint recommendation of a 10-year prison term: two consecutive mandatory 3-year firearm-specification terms (total 6 years) and concurrent 4-year terms on the underlying felonies, consecutive to the specs.
Trial court accepted the plea and imposed the jointly-recommended sentence consistent with the agreement.
On appeal Rouse challenged (1) imposition of consecutive firearm-specification terms under R.C. 2929.14 and (2) sentencing on allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25, arguing merger/double jeopardy error.
The State defended the sentence as authorized by mandatory statutory provisions and argued Rouse forfeited/waived any allied-offense claim; the Court of Appeals considered whether the sentence was contrary to law and whether appellate review was barred by statutory limits on review of joint recommendations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rouse)	Held
Whether consecutive 3-year firearm-specification terms violate R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) when offenses arise from same act/transaction	R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) mandates separate 3-year terms for the two most serious firearm specs tied to enumerated felonies (aggravated robbery, felonious assault); consecutive terms are required and lawful	The firearm specs arose from the same act/transaction so only one 3-year term should apply under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b)	Court held R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) controlled; consecutive 3-year terms were mandatory and the sentence was authorized by law, so Rouse cannot challenge the jointly-recommended sentence on appeal.
Whether convictions/sentences are for allied offenses of similar import in violation of R.C. 2941.25 (merger/double jeopardy)	The State relied on plea facts, the joint recommendation, and argued Rouse forfeited/waived merger by not seeking it at trial; even if not waived, Rouse did not raise plain error	Rouse argued the offenses were of similar import, committed without separate animus, and the court had a duty to inquire into merger	Court held Rouse forfeited/waived the allied-offense claim by failing to timely raise it; he did not argue plain error, and he failed to show the sentence was unauthorized by mandatory provisions—therefore appellate review is barred and claim rejected.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for appointed counsel filing brief and withdrawal on appeal)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
Underwood v. State, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (when a sentence is "authorized by law" it must comport with mandatory sentencing provisions)
Rogers v. State, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (guilty plea may forfeit allied-offense/merger claims if not timely raised)
Noling v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2013) (statutory limitations on appellate review of jointly-recommended sentences)