State v. Morgan

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 3198

Syllabus

Appellant's ineffective-assistance claim lacks merit because Appellant failed to establish how his trial counsel's performance at the resentencing hearing prejudiced him. Appellant's claim that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences for allied offenses during Appellant's resentencing hearing also fails because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the sentence at issue. Specifically, this court lacks jurisdiction to review Appellant's sentence under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), as the sentence was agreed by the parties, authorized by law, and accepted by the trial court. This court also lacks jurisdiction to review Appellant's sentence because Appellant did not appeal from his sentence, but from the trial court's decision on several pro se motions that were filed by Appellant prior to his resentencing. Even if this court had jurisdiction to review Appellant's sentence, Appellant failed to raise his allied-offenses claim before the trial court and waived all but plain error for appeal. Upon review, we find no error, plain or otherwise, in the trial court's sentencing decision and further find that Appellant's allied-offenses claim is barred by res judicata. Lastly, Appellant's claim that he was denied due process during both his original sentencing and resentencing hearings fails because, again, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the sentence at issue and Appellant's arguments in support of his due process claim otherwise lack merit. Judgment affirmed.