State v. Schmidt, 2019 Ohio 3990

At a car dealership, officers moved to arrest Timmothy Schmidt after dispatch confirmed outstanding warrants; Schmidt fled and was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun concealed in his waistband.
Officers chased and tackled Schmidt; during the struggle Schmidt fired nine rounds, striking both officers (nonfatal serious injuries); officers returned fire and shot Schmidt; all suffered serious injuries.
Schmidt was indicted for attempted murder, felonious assault, and resisting arrest; he pled guilty to two counts of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11) and one count of resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33) with firearm specifications; other counts were dismissed.
At sentencing the trial court merged a one-year firearm term into a seven-year specification, but imposed three consecutive seven-year firearm terms and consecutive prison terms (11 years + 11 years + 1.5 years) for an aggregate 44.5 years.
Schmidt appealed, arguing (1) the resisting-arrest conviction and its firearm spec should merge with the felonious-assault convictions (double jeopardy/allied-offense issue) and (2) the imposition of consecutive maximum sentences was improper because the court failed to give weight to his long-term drug addiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether resisting arrest (with firearm spec) merges with felonious assault counts under R.C. 2941.25 (allied-offenses)	State: offenses supported by separate conduct and harm; separate convictions permitted under Ruff.	Schmidt: same conduct, animus, and import — resisting-arrest should merge into felonious-assault (double jeopardy).	No merge — court found separate conduct completed resisting arrest and separate acts (additional shootings) supported felonious-assault convictions.
Whether consecutive, maximum sentences (total 44.5 years) were improper because the court failed to give weight to his drug addiction	State: trial court considered addiction but gave it no mitigating weight; sentences within statutory ranges and based on seriousness/recidivism findings.	Schmidt: court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.12(C) mitigating factor (long-term addiction), so maximum consecutive sentences were excessive.	Affirmed — appellate review found record supports trial court’s consideration and findings; Schmidt did not show clear-and-convincing error.

State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (sets allied-offense test: evaluate conduct, animus, and import)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (describes appellate review standard for felony sentences and clear-and-convincing review)