State v. Washington, 2012 Ohio 2117

Defendant David Washington was convicted in Lorain County Court of Common Pleas of failure to comply and obstructing official business.
The convictions arose from a high‑speed car chase and subsequent foot pursuit of police after Washington allegedly fled a theft investigation.
The trial court sentenced Washington on both counts to consecutive terms after resentencing prompted by Johnson v. State, which changed allied offenses analysis.
On appeal, the Ninth District held the two offenses were allied offenses of similar import and must merge for sentencing.
The court remanded to let the State elect which allied offense to pursue and sustained the allied offense issue, while overruling remaining challenges.
Washington’s second and third assignments—sufficiency and weight of obstructing official business—were barred by res judicata due to prior direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do failure to comply and obstructing official business merge as allied offenses?	Washington	Washington	Yes; they are allied offenses and must merge
Is the obstructing official business conviction supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence?	Washington	Washington	Issues barred by res judicata; overruled
Does res judicata bar reconsideration of sufficiency/weight after direct appeal?	Washington	Washington	Yes; barred

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (two allied offenses test centers on conduct)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (2010-Ohio-2) (merger framework for allied offenses)
State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (1999) (elements-based abstract comparison rejected)
State v. Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447 (2008-Ohio-4569) (single act, single state of mind concept explained)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata principles in post-conviction challenges)