# State v. Underwood

> Ohio Supreme Court · January 5, 2010 · 124 Ohio St. 3d 365

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802019

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Underwood, Appellee
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 5, 2010
- **Citations:** 124 Ohio St. 3d 365; 2010 Ohio 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Connor
- **Judges:** Lanzinger, Pfeifer, O'Connor, Stratton, O'Donnell, Cupp
- **Cited by:** 710 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802019

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that it was plain error to sentence defendant for Grand Theft and Medicaid Fraud where the two offenses were allied offenses of similar import
- finding same -5- Clinton CA2025-03-008 postrelease control notifications and requirements mandatory sentencing provisions in previous statutory scheme
- noting in this context that, “even when the sentences are to be served concurrently, a defendant is prejudiced by having more convictions than are authorized by law”
- noting that "sentences that do not comport with mandatory provisions are subject to total resentencing"
- finding plain error even where it is a jointly recommended sentence

## Opinion text

O’Connor, J.,
concurring.
{¶ 34} I concur in the conclusion that R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar appellate review of a sentence that has been jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the court when the sentence includes convictions for offenses that are allied offenses of similar import.
{¶ 35} I write separately, however, to emphasize my view that allied offenses are merged at sentencing solely for the purpose of sentencing.
Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802019. Public record. Not legal advice.