State v. Wesson, 137 Ohio St. 3d 309

Wesson was convicted by a three‑judge panel of two counts of aggravated murder with death specifications, two counts of attempted murder, three counts of aggravated robbery, and other related offenses, receiving a death sentence for one aggravated-murder count and a 26‑year noncapital aggregate term after mergers.
Count Three (aggravated murder while under detention) and its associated specification were reversed due to a void postrelease‑control (PRC) sentencing entry, while Count Two’s aggravated-murder conviction and its death specification remained intact.
Wesson killed Emil Varhola and stabbed Mary Varhola in their home on February 25, 2008; Emil died from stab wounds and Mary was severely injured.
Wesson’s three‑judge panel was formed after he waived jury trial; Judge Teodosio appointed two other judges to the panel, a process later criticized as improper, though no objection was raised at trial.
During trial, Wesson’s statements to police were ruled admissible; a repudiation recording of those statements was excluded as hearsay, and the court ultimately found a valid Miranda waiver and voluntary statement.
The sentencing record included a 2003 conviction with a flawed postrelease‑control term; the court corrected this through independent sentencing review, excluding the detention‑based aggravating specification from the weighing analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the indictment defective for mens rea in the felony‑murder counts?	Wesson argues mens rea for aggravated robbery/ specs was missing.	State contends indictment tracked statute and provided notice.	Indictment adequate; plain error not shown.
Was Wesson’s Miranda waiver valid given intoxication and conditions?	Wesson asserts impaired waiver due to sleep, alcohol, coercive setting.	State shows totality of circumstances supports knowing, voluntary waiver.	Waiver valid; suppression rejected.
Did the three‑judge panel selection violate R.C. 2945.06 and require reversal?	Panel selection by presiding judge was improper; potential reversible error.	Wesson consented to the panel; error deemed plain only, not reversible.	Panel selection not reversible error; no prejudice shown.
Does the void 2003 postrelease‑control sentence affect Counts Three and the detention specifications?	Void PRC sentence should defeat detention specifications.	Billiter controls; some aspects voidable, not jurisdictional.	Count Three and related specs reversed; Count Two continues with death sentence; independent weighing performed.
Are allied offenses properly punished when robbery and tampering involve different conduct?	Aggravated robbery and tampering are same‑course, same animus.	Different conduct supports separate convictions.	Not allied offenses; convictions affirmed.

State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (2010) (indictment notice and mens rea considerations; plain error review applied)
State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (2010) (felony-murder specifications lack mens rea; notice sufficiency)
State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403 (2006) (predicate offense elements vs. underlying offense elements; pari materia)
State v. Lester, 123 Ohio St.3d 396 (2009) (reckless mens rea not required for displaying a deadly weapon in aggravated robbery)
State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107 (1996) (independent sentencing review; cure of improper aggravating spec)
State v. Foust, 105 Ohio St.3d 137 (2004) (course‑of‑conduct murder; proportionality and weighing framework)
State v. Pless, 74 Ohio St.3d 333 (1996) (strict compliance with three‑judge panel requirements)
State v. Parker, 95 Ohio St.3d 524 (2002) (panel selection and capital procedures; waiver limitations)
State v. Filiaggi, 86 Ohio St.3d 230 (1999) (three‑judge panel proceedings in capital cases; remand for proper panel procedure)
State v. Pratts, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (remedy for capital-panel appointment errors; direct appeal post‑error rule)