State v. Torres, 2014 Ohio 1622

Torres was indicted on 60 counts relating to child pornography offenses between Jan 25 and Mar 9, 2012.
Counts 1-2, 9 and 49-59 charged illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance; Counts 3-8, 10, and 11-48 charged pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor; Count 60 charged possessing criminal tools.
Torres pleaded guilty to Counts 1-38 and 60 as part of a plea agreement; remaining counts were dismissed; the plea stipulated the offenses were not allied offenses of similar import.
The trial court explained potential penalties extensively to Torres and confirmed his understanding before accepting the plea.
At sentencing, the court imposed multiple prison terms (aggregate 16 years 3 months), plus mandatory five years postrelease control and designation as a Tier II sex offender, with forfeiture of specified computers and drives.
The sole assigned error alleges the court should have sua sponte determined whether the counts were allied offenses, despite the plea stipulation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are allied offenses required to be determined where a plea stipulates they are non-allied?	State contends the plea agreement renders the court unnecessary to evaluate allied offenses.	Torres argues the court must determine allied offenses regardless of stipulation.	No error; because the parties stipulated non-allied, the court was not required to determine allied offenses.

State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-1) (when silent, trial court must determine allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25)
State v. Recob, 2014-Ohio-929 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100012) (supports non-obligation to determine allied offenses when plea stipulates non-allied)
State v. Mannarino, 2013-Ohio-1795 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98727) (affirms allied offense analysis considerations in plea context)
State v. Ward, 2012-Ohio-1199 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97219) (discusses Allied Offenses framework in sentencing)