State v. Pennington - Allied Offense Determination Appeal
Summary
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of D'Angelo Pennington's motion for an allied-offense determination. The court found Pennington's arguments were either not properly before the court or barred by res judicata. The appeal raised multiple assignments of error concerning plea colloquy, sentencing, and double jeopardy.
What changed
The Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's judgment denying D'Angelo Pennington's motion for an allied-offense determination. The court determined that Pennington's arguments, which challenged his plea colloquy, sentencing for allied offenses, and alleged violations of the double jeopardy clause and the Reagan Tokes Act, were either not properly preserved for appeal or were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The appeal involved 14 assignments of error, including claims that the trial court failed to properly inform the defendant about the effects of his plea, allied offenses, firearm specifications, and sentencing structures.
This decision means the original sentence stands, and the defendant's challenges to it have been rejected by the appellate court. Compliance officers in criminal justice settings should note that appeals based on procedural errors in plea colloquies or sentencing for allied offenses are subject to strict appellate review standards, including res judicata, which can prevent relitigation of issues already decided or that could have been raised earlier. The ruling reinforces the importance of thorough trial court procedures and proper preservation of issues for appeal.
What to do next
- Review appellate court's reasoning on res judicata and proper preservation of issues for future case strategy.
- Ensure all plea colloquies and sentencing orders are compliant with state statutes and constitutional requirements to avoid grounds for appeal.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
State v. Pennington
Ohio Court of Appeals
- Citations: 2026 Ohio 1054
- Docket Number: 115508
Judges: Sheehan
Syllabus
Res judicata; allied offenses; voidable sentence. The trial court's judgment denying the petitioner's motion for allied-offense determination was affirmed. The petitioner's arguments were either not properly before this court or barred by res judicata.
Combined Opinion
[Cite as State v. Pennington, 2026-Ohio-1054.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 115508
v. :
D’ANGELO PENNINGTON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 26, 2026
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-22-674502-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Matthew W. Moretto, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
D’Angelo Pennington, pro se.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J.:
Defendant-appellant D’Angelo Pennington appeals the trial court’s
judgment denying his motion for allied-offense determination. He raises 14
assignments of error:
1. The Trial Court erred when they failed to comply with the
requirement of Crim.R. 11 by failing to inform defendant and
determining that the defendant understood the effect of his plea.
The Trial Court erred as a matter of law imposing separate sentences
for the allied offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the
5th Amendment to the Constitution and Article I section 10 of the Ohio
Constitution.The Trial Court erred by imposing an unconstitutional sentence
pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act and did not explicitly state the
maximum indefinite sentence under Reagan Tokes Act and using plus
Reagan Tokes is inconsistent.Trial Court erred by failing to inform Mr. Pennington about Firearm
Specifications, Sentence Structure, judicial release probation eligible,
Early release eligible.Trial Court failed to let Mr. Pennington know about Allied Offense
and merge Allied offense.Appellants guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently,
voluntarily due to the trial court lack of colloquy regarding the allied
offense.Trial Court erred by imposing multiple punishments for the same
offense.Trial Court erred by not explaining the One-three-year Firearm
Specification and Mandatory Consecutive sentence.Trial Court committed error by imposing Consecutive Sentences
without making finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) which required
this court to vacate Consecutive sentence.Trial court committed error by using Specification to use of firearm
or Dangerous ordnance by violent career criminal as a charge.Failed to merge one-three-year firearm specification, carrying a
Concealed Weapon, to use of firearm or dangerous ordnance by violent
career criminal specification as allied offense.Trial Judge did not explicitly state the Maximum Indefinite
sentence of Specifications Enhancements, or Firearm Specifications.Trial Court parties erred in agreeing to an unlawful sentence range
and the trial court erred in imposing it.Mr. Pennington was not advised of maximum possible penalties in
sentence.
After review, we overrule Pennington’s assigned errors because they
are either not properly before this court or barred by res judicata and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
I. Procedural History and Factual Background
In June 2023, Pennington pleaded guilty to two counts: involuntary
manslaughter, in violation of R.C. 2903.04, a felony of the first degree with one- and
three-year firearm, notice-of-prior conviction, and repeat-violent-offender
specifications, and use of firearm or dangerous ordnance by a violent career
criminal, in violation of R.C. 2923.132(B), a felony of the first degree. The trial court
sentenced Pennington to 20 to 25 years in prison.
Pennington appealed. See State v. Pennington, 2024-Ohio-5483 (8th
Dist.). In his direct appeal, he argued that the parties erred in agreeing to an
unlawful sentencing range and that the trial court erred in imposing it. Id. at ¶ 10.
Specifically, he argued that the trial court did not properly inform him of the Reagan
Tokes Law at his plea hearing. Id. We found no merit to his sole assignment of error
and affirmed his convictions and sentence. Id. at ¶ 18-19.
In May and June 2025, Pennington filed a petition for postconviction
relief and a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. The trial court denied
both postconviction filings.
On July 1, 2025, Pennington filed a motion for allied-offense
determination, which is the motion at issue in this appeal. The trial court denied
Pennington’s motion.1 It is from this judgment that Pennington now appeals.
II. Law and Analysis
We note at the outset that Pennington is appealing from the trial
court’s denial of his motion for allied-offense determination. Therefore, his assigned
errors that address anything other than allied offenses are not properly before this
court. We further note that we will not address Pennington’s assigned errors
regarding allied offenses because they are barred by res judicata.
In State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913, and State v. Henderson, 2020-
Ohio-4784, the Ohio Supreme Court realigned its precedent with the traditional
understanding of what constitutes a void judgment. Harper at ¶ 4; Henderson at
¶ 34. “Based on Harper and Henderson, the current void-sentence jurisprudence
of the Ohio Supreme Court is clear: if the sentencing court has subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over the defendant, any
sentencing error renders the sentence voidable, not void.” State v. Stansell, 2021-
Ohio-2036, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.) (en banc). And if a sentencing error renders the
1 A judge issued a judgment entry on July 9, 2025, stating, “[D]efendant’s motion
for allied offense determination filed 7/2/25 is denied.” However, Pennington filed his
motion on July 1, 2025. A second judge issued a judgment entry on August 6, 2025,
stating, “[M]otion for allied offense determination filed pro se . . . 07/01/2025, is denied
as moot.” Pennington timely appealed from the second judgment entry. The State
maintains that the second entry was moot because the first judge had already denied his
motion. But because the first judge used an inaccurate date, we will presume the second
judge’s entry properly denied Pennington’s motion.
defendant’s sentence voidable, the error must be challenged on direct appeal or the
sentence will be subject to the doctrine of res judicata, which bars the assertion of
claims that could have or should have been raised in a prior proceeding. Harper at
¶ 43. This rule “secures parties’ expectations in the finality of a judgment.”
Henderson at ¶ 19.
There is no dispute in this case that the trial court had both subject-
matter jurisdiction over Pennington’s case and personal jurisdiction over him.
R.C. 2931.03; State v. Castner, 2021-Ohio-1048, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). And “claims of
merger . . . are voidable sentencing errors that must be raised on direct appeal.”
State v. Gross, 2021-Ohio-3289, ¶ 26 (11th Dist.). Accordingly, any alleged error in
the trial court’s failure to merge allied offenses rendered the sentence voidable, not
void, and thus, Pennington was required to raise the issue on direct appeal. He did
not do so and, thus, res judicata prohibits him from raising the claim now.
Pennington’s assigned errors are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Ohio Court of Appeals publishes new changes.