State v. McGee

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 1851

Syllabus

Appellant filed a motion for resentencing averring that several Constitutional rights were violated when he received consecutive sentences for firearm specifications and that the Supreme Court of Ohio case of State v. Beatty prohibited the consecutive sentences. Appellant's motion for resentencing is treated as a postconviction petition and is untimely, filed almost two years after the completion of his direct appeal. Appellant's argument fails on Double Jeopardy as firearm specifications are not offenses but enhancements and, as such, are not subject to merger. Supreme Court of Ohio case State v. Beatty is distinguishable from appellant's case because it addressed felonies committed as part of the same act or transaction and addresses statutory interpretation—not constitutional rights. Although citing case law, appellant failed to allege how equal protection was violated in his case. Appellant failed to show that trial counsel was ineffective or that such failure demonstrated prejudice. The doctrine of res judicata bars all arguments through a motion for resentencing as each of these arguments could have been made or were made in appellant's direct appeal. Judgement affirmed.