State v. Shearer, 2016 Ohio 7302

Landra Shearer was convicted of attempted murder (1st deg.), two counts of felonious assault (2nd & 3rd deg.), and two counts of having weapons while under disability, each with firearm and forfeiture specifications; he received an aggregate 18-year sentence.
On direct appeal, this court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing after holding felonious assault was an allied offense to attempted murder; the trial court vacated the felonious assault conviction and resentenced Shearer in 2010.
After the remand, Shearer repeatedly (nine motions between 2010–2015) sought correction of the journal/ sentencing entry, arguing the court should have merged multiple firearm specifications and not imposed consecutive sentences because the offenses arose from a single shooting.
The trial court denied his motions and declined to hold a hearing, concluding the issue was resolved by the 2010 remand and judgment.
Shearer appealed the denial, raising three assignments of error challenging multiple/consecutive firearm specifications and consecutive sentences for offenses he says arose from a single act.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Shearer’s claims are barred by res judicata because they were or could have been litigated on direct appeal from the original conviction and final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether multiple firearm specifications should have been merged after convictions were merged	State: Resolved by prior remand and resentencing; entry stands	Shearer: Multiple firearm specs arose from one act and should merge into one specification	Court: Barred by res judicata; claims could have been raised on direct appeal — denied
Whether consecutive sentences for multiple offenses based on a single act were improper	State: Consecutive sentencing previously addressed; no relief	Shearer: Offenses stemmed from one shooting, no separate animus to justify consecutive terms	Court: Barred by res judicata; could have been litigated on prior appeal — denied
Whether sentencing treated separate acts/times where bill of particulars alleged a single act/time	State: Prior final judgment controls	Shearer: Journal/entry should reflect single act; resentencing error persists	Court: Barred by res judicata; claim should have been raised earlier — denied
Whether the trial court erred in denying a hearing on motion to correct sentence	State: Motion successive and precluded	Shearer: Entitled to hearing to correct journal/entry errors	Court: Motion precluded by res judicata; no hearing required — denied

No officially reported (Westlaw/Lexis/print reporter) cases with Bluebook citations are cited in the opinion; the decision relies primarily on Ohio res judicata doctrine and prior appellate rulings in unpublished/state-report-referenced entries.