State v. Scott, 2013 Ohio 1559

Scott was indicted on 11 counts with codefendant Grant for two armed robberies on the same night against two victims.
Victims Williams and Polk testified; Williams described Scott as the tall robber and identified him at trial; Polk identified Scott as the gunman.
Evidence included a gunshot residue test on Scott and recovered property linked to both victims found on codefendant.
The jury convicted Scott of multiple counts including kidnapping, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, theft, and weapon under disability; gun specifications applied.
The trial court sentenced Scott to 24 years, with post-release control; the court failed to properly merge allied offenses and imposed multiple sentences.
On appeal, Scott challenges sufficiency of identity, the sentencing scheme (consecutive/allying offenses), and the adequacy of the investigation into his pro se complaint about counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence identifying Scott as the perpetrator?	Scott argued identification was unreliable due to darkness and lack of prior familiarity.	Scott contends the State failed to prove his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.	Yes; identification was sufficient to convict.
Did the trial court err by imposing a 24-year consecutive sentence on allied offenses of similar import?	Goins/State argues consecutive terms were justified by statute and record.	Scott asserts improper sentencing and that allied offenses must be merged.	Plain error; sentencing violated merger requirements; vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
Was there error in how the court handled Scott’s pro se complaint about his counsel and its investigation?	State argues court adequately addressed concerns and dismissed concerns given lack of specificity.	Scott argues the court failed to properly investigate or appoint new counsel.	No reversible error; no prejudice shown; investigation deemed adequate and no abuse of discretion.

State v. Goins, 2013-Ohio-263 (Ohio 2013) (mandatory merger of allied offenses; correct sentencing practice)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 2010) (plain error when sentencing allied offenses)
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1 (Ohio 2010) (merger doctrine and allied offenses guidance at sentencing)
State v. Carter, 128 Ohio App.3d 419 (4th Dist. 1998) (prejudice analysis for ineffective assistance and bifurcation decisions)
State v. Botta, 27 Ohio St.2d 196 (1971) (conviction on allied offenses does not require multiple sentences)