State v. Ayers

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 1040

Syllabus

Motion for new trial; Crim.R. 33(A)(6); Brady violation; de novo review; prejudice; allied offenses; merger; R.C. 2941.25; plain error; concurrent sentence; indefinite sentence; Reagan Tokes Act; R.C. 2929.144(B)(2) and (C); felony sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); \qualifying felony\; R.C. 2929.14(A); 2929.19(B)(2); minimum and maximum terms. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for resentencing. Appellant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the late disclosure of information. In other words, appellant did not establish that there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the trial would have been different. Accordingly, it was not error for the trial court to deny appellant's motion for new trial because his due-process rights were not violated. Nevertheless, we reverse appellant's sentence because the trial court improperly sentenced appellant on allied offenses of similar import. In addition, the trial court incorrectly imposed the minimum and maximum prison terms as set forth in R.C. 2929.144(B)(2) and (C) and failed to properly advise Ayers of the notification requirements as set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2). Therefore, this case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.