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.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Burch

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 777
• Docket Number: CA2025-08-069

• Judges: Siebert

• Opinion

• Authorities (17)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (75)

• PDF

Syllabus

Defendant's convictions and sentence for, among other crimes, aggravated arson, are affirmed. The trial court was not required to advise defendant regarding the possible merger of offenses for sentencing, and defendant's aggravated arson charges did not merge because the single fire posed a risk to multiple victims. Consecutive sentences were supported by the record despite the defendant's lack of criminal history. Finally, the trial court's amended sentencing order corrected a typographical error and had no effect on issues that were contested at the trial level, meaning it was a permissible nunc pro tunc order despite coming after a notice of appeal.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Burch, 2026-Ohio-777.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2025-08-069
Appellee, :
OPINION AND
vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
3/9/2026
MICHAEL TROY BURCH, :

Appellant. :

:

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 24CR41591

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Neal D. Schuett, for appellant.

---

OPINION

SIEBERT, J.

{¶ 1} Michael Troy Burch appeals his conviction and sentence after pleading

guilty to three aggravated arson offenses, felonious assault, obstructing official business,

inducing panic, and associated specifications. On appeal, Burch contends the trial court
Warren CA2025-08-069

failed to advise him of whether the aggravated arson convictions would merge for

sentencing purposes, failed to actually merge his aggravated arson convictions and

sentence, inappropriately ran those sentences consecutively to one another, and listed

the incorrect offenses in its sentencing order. However, Ohio law plainly demonstrates (1)

the trial court did not need to advise Burch on merger before his plea of guilty, (2) the trial

court could not merge his aggravated arson convictions, (3) consecutive sentences were

supported by the record, and (4) the trial court had continuing jurisdiction to correct the

typographical error in its original sentencing entry.

Brief Background

{¶ 2} In March of 2024, Burch intentionally set his home on fire after pouring

gasoline on the carpet and using a lighter to ignite it. Burch's girlfriend was at his house

when he set it ablaze. The resulting fire spread to two neighboring properties and

required several neighbors, including one in a wheelchair, to evacuate. When police, fire,

and other emergency personnel arrived, they found Burch in his front yard holding a gun

to his head. When approached by a sheriff's deputy, Burch pointed the gun at the deputy

and pulled the trigger. However, the gun did not discharge, and police took Burch into

custody.

{¶ 3} A grand jury indicted Burch for five counts of aggravated arson, felonious

assault on a peace officer, obstructing official business, inducing panic, and various

associated specifications. The trial court initially found Burch incompetent to stand trial,

but after being restored to competency, Burch entered guilty pleas to three first-degree

felony counts of aggravated arson, felonious assault, obstructing official business,

inducing panic, and their associated specifications. Two second-degree aggravated

arson counts were dismissed. During the plea hearing, the prosecutor recited a statement

of facts constituting Burch's offenses. When asked if he agreed with the factual statement,

-2-
Warren CA2025-08-069

Burch indicated he did not agree that he had pointed a gun at a police officer. Burch's

counsel asked for a minute to confer with Burch, after which Burch advised the court "I

agree that everything is true." The court subsequently accepted Burch's plea.

{¶ 4} At sentencing, the trial court acknowledged that Burch had a long,

documented history of mental health issues, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

Nonetheless, the trial court asserted that Burch "displayed a unique ability to plan and

implement a series of activities that were very intentional in nature designed to burn down

your house for whatever reason in your mind that you had." As a result, the trial court

concluded that Burch was "sound mind at the time that [he] committed these offenses."

The trial court further noted that Burch's possession of a firearm during the incident served

as a "complicating factor" and that Burch was lucky to be alive.

{¶ 5} The trial court sentenced Burch to an aggregate prison term of 21-24 years.

In doing so, the court concluded that Burch's aggravated arson convictions did not merge

because each involved a separate victim. In addition, the court imposed consecutive six-

year sentences to each of the aggravated arson charges, finding that it was "necessary to

punish [Burch], and more importantly to protect the public from [him]." The trial court also

concluded the consecutive sentences were not "disproportionate to the conduct or danger

posed by [Burch,]" that his offenses "were part of the course of conduct[,] and the harm

caused [was] so great or unusual that a single prison term would not adequately reflect the

seriousness of [Burch's] conduct."

{¶ 6} Burch now appeals.

First Assignment of Error – Was Burch's Plea Knowing, Voluntary, and Intelligent?

Applicable Law

{¶ 7} A guilty plea is a "complete admission of the defendant's guilt." Crim.R.

11(B)(1). As a result, "[a] criminal defendant's choice to enter a guilty plea is a serious

-3-
Warren CA2025-08-069

decision." State v. Bishop, 2018-Ohio-5132, ¶ 10. "When a defendant enters a guilty plea

in a felony criminal case, the plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made."

State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-3074, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.). If it is not, the plea is unconstitutional.

Bishop at ¶10. Therefore, in order to safeguard the defendant's rights, trial courts are

required to cover various topics with a defendant before accepting a guilty plea. Crim.R.

11(C); Bishop at ¶ 11.

{¶ 8} For example, the trial court must advise offenders that pleading guilty

results in a waiver of constitutional rights such as the right to a jury trial, to confront

witnesses testifying against the offender, and of the State's burden to prove the offender's

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id., citing Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(c). A trial court's failure

to advise defendants of their constitutional rights renders the plea presumptively

unconstitutional. State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 14.

{¶ 9} In addition to advising defendants of the constitutional rights they waive by

pleading guilty, trial courts must also advise defendants of various nonconstitutional

rights, such as whether they are subject to supervision by Ohio's parole board after being

released from prison ("postrelease control"). Id. at ¶ 15-17, R.C. 2967.28. A trial court's

"complete failure" to advise a defendant of their nonconstitutional rights or obligations,

will result in the plea being presumptively unconstitutional. Id.

Analysis

{¶ 10} Burch argues his guilty pleas to the aggravated arson offenses are invalid

because the trial court failed to include in its plea colloquy advice concerning whether the

offenses would merge. In addition, Burch claims the trial court erred by proceeding with

the plea after Burch initially disagreed with the State's recitation of facts regarding the

felonious assault charge. Burch asserts the trial court should have made further inquiries

to ensure that Burch understood the nature of the charges, especially in light of his mental

-4-
Warren CA2025-08-069

health history.

{¶ 11} Ohio caselaw quickly demonstrates each of these arguments are without

merit. We will discuss merger in more detail in Burch's second assignment of error, but

Ohio courts have consistently held "[t]here is . . . no requirement that a trial court advise

a defendant regarding the possible merger of offenses for sentencing or ensure that a

defendant understands the merger of offenses before accepting the defendant's guilty

pleas." State v. Albright, 2019-Ohio-1998, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.). See also State v. Pagan, 2019-

Ohio-4954, ¶ 26 (10th Dist.); State v. Farakhan, 2025-Ohio-1130, ¶ 5 (9th Dist.); State v.

Carnahan, 2016-Ohio-3213, ¶ 23 (3rd Dist.); State v. Jefferson, 2014-Ohio-2555, ¶ 21

(2nd Dist.).

{¶ 12} We also find no issue as to the court's inquiries into Burch's understanding

of the charges. While Burch initially disagreed with the State's recitation of facts, his

subsequent assertion—after conferring with counsel no less—that the statement of facts

was indeed true obviated any need for the trial court to make further inquiries. State v.

Rivera, 2014-Ohio-3378, ¶ 28 (12th Dist.) ("There is no requirement that a court enter into

a discussion with a defendant or defendant's counsel to ensure there is an understanding

where no uncertainty is otherwise indicated"); State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-3074, ¶ 18 (12th

Dist.), quoting Rivera.

{¶ 13} We overrule this assignment of error.

Second Assignment of Error – Should Aggravated Arson Charges Have Been
Merged for Sentencing Purposes?

Applicable Law

{¶ 14} When a defendant is convicted of two separate offenses of "similar import,"

the indictment may include all the offenses, but the defendant may only be convicted of

one so as to prevent double jeopardy. R.C. 2941.25(A). Only if "the defendant's conduct

-5-
Warren CA2025-08-069

constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two

or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate

animus as to each" can multiple punishments be imposed. R.C. 2941.25(B). When

considered together, these two statutory clauses only permit multiple convictions for

multiple offenses if any one of the following applies: "(1) the conduct constitutes offenses

of dissimilar import, (2) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed separately,

or (3) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed with separate animus." State

v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995, ¶ 13. Otherwise, the offenses must be "merged," and the court

can only convict and impose a sentence on the defendant for one of the offenses. Id. If

offenses are merged, the prosecution elects which offense it wishes to pursue for

sentencing, and the trial court sentences the defendant on that elected offense. See State

v. Sperry, 2025-Ohio-2626, ¶ 39 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 15} The test for determining whether multiple offenses are of "similar import"

becomes critical in analyzing merger questions. If the defendant's conduct puts more than

one individual at risk, the multiple offenses are of dissimilar import and merger will not be

required. Ruff at ¶ 23, citing State v. Jones, 18 Ohio St.3d 116, 118 (1985) (holding

dissimilar import resulting from one car accident with multiple victims); State v. Franklin,

2002-Ohio-5304, ¶ 48 (finding dissimilar import when defendant set one fire, placing six

different people at risk). Likewise, multiple offenses are of dissimilar import if the resulting

harm from each offense is separate and identifiable (i.e., one offense is not "incident" to

the other). Ruff at ¶ 23.

{¶ 16} The focus of our analysis must be on the defendant's conduct and is fact

dependent. Id. at ¶ 26. If any of the following is true, the defendant may be convicted and

sentenced for multiple offenses:

(1) the offenses were dissimilar in import, determined by

-6-
Warren CA2025-08-069

analyzing whether

a. the defendant's conduct put more than one person
at risk; or

b. if each offense caused separate and identifiable
harm

(2) the offenses were committed separately; or

(3) the offenses were committed with separate animus or
motivation

Id. at ¶ 25. (Emphasis added).

Analysis

{¶ 17} Burch argues his three separate arson charges were allied offenses of

similar import. As a result, he asserts he cannot receive multiple punishments for the

same offense. But, again, Ohio caselaw definitively states otherwise. The Ohio Supreme

Court has held that a single fire can support multiple aggravated arson charges because

if it "created a risk of harm to . . . separate person[s]." Franklin at ¶ 48.

{¶ 18} When Burch set fire to his own home, his girlfriend was there, putting her at

risk of harm. In addition, the fire spread to two neighboring properties, placing those

properties and their occupants at risk. Burch's actions created a risk of harm to three

different people (his girlfriend and two neighbors). The charges are not allied and do not

require merger under Ohio law.

{¶ 19} We overrule Burch's second assignment of error.

Third Assignment of Error – Were Consecutive Sentences Proper?

Applicable Law

{¶ 20} Ohio law creates a presumption in favor of concurrent sentences. State v.

Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 4. However, if the trial court "finds that the consecutive

service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and

-7-
Warren CA2025-08-069

that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's

conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public. . ." that presumption may be

overcome. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (the "Statute"). In addition to these findings, the Statute

also requires the trial court to find, as relevant here, that

At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part
of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by
two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so
great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the
offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct
adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct.

[or]

The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public
from future crime by the offender.

Id. at (C)(4)(b), (c). Ohio law requires the trial court to state these findings at the

sentencing hearing to "afford[] notice to the offender and to defense counsel" as to why

consecutive sentences were imposed. Bonnell at ¶ 29, citing Crim.R. 32(A)(4). In doing

so, "the trial court is not required to provide a word-for-word recitation of the language of

the statute or articulate reasons supporting its findings." State v. Fridley, 2017-Ohio-4368,

¶ 48 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 21} However, a "reviewing court [should be able to] discern that the trial court

engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains evidence to

support the findings" in favor of consecutive sentences. Bonnell at ¶ 29. Stated differently,

Ohio law appellate courts must review the record and determine if the record "clearly and

convincingly" supports the trial court's findings. Id. at ¶ 28; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). If the

record does not support the trial court's findings, the appellate court must modify or vacate

the sentence. Id.

-8-
Warren CA2025-08-069

Analysis

{¶ 22} Burch does not argue on appeal that the trial court did not make the findings

required by the Statute. Instead, he argues that consecutive sentences are not supported

by the record. Burch points to the fact he had no prior criminal history and asserts his

"conduct was the result of his severe mental illness not a purposeful intent to harm

others." As a result, Burch contends that consecutive sentences effectively criminalized

his mental illness instead of serving as a mitigating factor.

{¶ 23} No one, including the trial court, is oblivious to these mitigating factors Burch

points to. However, before imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court emphasized

that despite Burch's criminal and mental history, he nonetheless "displayed a unique

ability to plan and implement a series of activities" that resulted in the arson of three

homes. Regardless of whether he purposefully intended to harm anyone, the trial court

concluded that Burch knew what he was doing.1 Moreover, the trial court noted that his

possession of a gun—which he pointed at a police officer and pulled the trigger—served

as a "complicating factor" to this series of events. We conclude that Burch's consecutive

sentences were supported by the record.

{¶ 24} This assignment of error is overruled.

Fourth Assignment of Error – Does the Trial Court's Erroneous Entry Void
Burch's Convictions?

{¶ 25} Finally, Burch argues his convictions are voidable because the trial court's

original sentencing entry of July 16, 2025, stated that Burch was convicted of three

offenses of aggravated arson and listed R.C. 2907.02(A)(1) as the applicable code

1. Burch pled guilty to three first-degree counts of aggravated arson. Aggravated arson is defined as "knowingly . . . [c]reat[ing] a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person other than the offender" via a fire or explosion. R.C. 2909.02(A)(1). "A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist." R.C. 2901.22(B). -9- Warren CA2025-08-069

section. As Burch correctly points out, this code section criminalizes rape, not aggravated

arson. R.C. 2909.02(A)(1) criminalizes aggravated arson. Although the trial court later

entered an order correcting this error on August 13, 2025, Burch nonetheless asserts this

order is invalid because it came after Burch already filed an appeal, divesting the trial

court of jurisdiction.

{¶ 26} Burch's argument is ultimately without merit. Generally speaking, a trial

court is permitted to correct clerical mistakes at any time. Crim.R. 36. The Ohio Supreme

Court recently reaffirmed this proposition when it observed that the use of a nunc pro tunc

entry to correct a clerical error is permitted even when the case is pending on direct

appeal. State ex rel. Harris v. Rothgery, 2026-Ohio-578, ¶ 21. A clerical error is a mistake

that is mechanical in nature, apparent on the record, and does not involve a legal decision

or judgment. State v. Lester, 2011-Ohio-5204, ¶ 18. However, trial courts are "'divested

of jurisdiction' to issue [an amended] entry to correct a mistake in its judgment entry that

was assigned as error on appeal.'" State v. Schrader, 2020-Ohio-3925, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.),

quoting State v. Alford, 2012-Ohio-3490, ¶ 11 (2nd Dist.). (Emphasis added).

{¶ 27} Here, while the amended entry came after Burch's notice of appeal, it came

before Burch's brief (filed September 8, 2025) asserting this assignment of error. In

Schrader, the amended orders came months after the notices of appeal were filed. Id. at

¶ 4. Ultimately, the trial court's amendment did not alter anything that was not already

apparent on the record, as the underlying proceedings never involved allegations of rape.

Stated differently, because Burch had not specifically raised this error on appeal when

the trial court corrected the entry, and he raises no assignments of error on appeal that

were otherwise contested or impacted by the trial court's amended order, we find no

reversible error. State v. Elliott, 2023-Ohio-4377, ¶ 27 (11th Dist.).

• 10 - Warren CA2025-08-069

{¶ 28} Burch's final assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 29} Judgment affirmed.

PIPER, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is
the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Warren County Court of Common
Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and
Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.

/s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge

• 11 -