State v. Studgions, 2016 Ohio 5236

In June 2009, Antoine B. Studgions pleaded guilty to attempted felonious assault (third-degree felony), domestic violence, and drug possession arising from an incident where he battered his pregnant girlfriend.
Sentencing was delayed because Studgions was in federal custody; he was remanded in 2012 for sentencing.
In September 2012 the trial court imposed: 5 years (attempted felonious assault), 12 months (drug possession), and 6 months (domestic violence), with the 5-year and 12-month terms consecutive (aggregate 6 years).
Studgions moved pro se in 2015 to correct an unlawful sentence, arguing the 5-year term exceeded the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony; the court agreed, resentenced him to 36 months on the attempted felonious assault count, and reimposed the other terms with the 36- and 12-month terms consecutive (aggregate 48 months).
On appeal Studgions argued the court should have merged the domestic violence and attempted felonious assault convictions as allied offenses arising from the same conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allied-offense merger should have occurred for domestic violence and attempted felonious assault	State: merger claim is barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal	Studgions: convictions arose from same conduct and should have merged	Court: Res judicata doesn't bar review because original 5-year sentence was void, but Studgions forfeited non-merger claim and fails to show plain error; convictions do not merge
Whether the original 5-year sentence was void	State: original sentence exceeded statutory range and thus was void (implicit)	Studgions: challenged sentence as unlawful and outside statutory maximum	Court: Original 5-year term for a third-degree felony exceeded the R.C. 2929.14(A)(3) 36-month maximum and was void
Whether res judicata prevents review of merger after resentencing	State: res judicata would bar issues not raised on direct appeal	Studgions: argued merger should be reviewed now	Court: Because original sentence was void, res judicata does not apply and the sentence is reviewable
Whether failure to merge was plain error	State: merger not required because separate victims/animus; defendant forfeited review except plain error	Studgions: trial court erred by not merging counts	Court: No plain error — conduct involved two victims (mother and unborn child) / separate animus, so offenses are not allied; merger not required

State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (a void sentence is subject to review at any time because it does not affect jurisdiction)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (a void judgment is a nullity; parties are as if no judgment occurred)
State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103 (2012) (a sentence unauthorized by law is void)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (R.C. 2941.25: offenses are not allied when conduct involves separate victims or separate, identifiable harm)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (2015) (forfeiture of nonconstitutional sentencing objections; plain-error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))