State v. Perez

2025 Ohio 5357

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Perez, 2025-Ohio-5357.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE )

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 24AP0027

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE JONATHAN PEREZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 2021 CRC-I 000268

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: December 1, 2025

HENSAL, Judge.

{¶1} Jonathan Perez appeals the sentence imposed by the Wayne County Court of

Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Mr. Perez pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and two counts of felonious

assault arising from a shooting that involved three victims. He also pleaded guilty to the firearm

specifications that accompanied each charge of felonious assault. The trial court found him guilty

and sentenced him to a stated prison term of six to nine years for involuntary manslaughter. The

trial court sentenced him to stated prison terms of four to six years for each count of felonious

assault and ordered those sentences to be served concurrently with each other but consecutive to

the sentence for involuntary manslaughter. The trial court also sentenced him to two three-year

mandatory prison terms for each firearm specification, resulting in a total stated term of twelve to 2

fifteen years in prison. Mr. Perez appealed his sentence, assigning two errors for this Court’s

review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT SENTENCED HIM FOR ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT, IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSES [SIC].

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT FAILED TO MERGE LIKE OFFENSES COMMITTED IN [THE] SAME ACT, IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

{¶3} Mr. Perez’s assignments of error both argue that the trial court erred by failing to

merge his convictions for purposes of sentencing. Because Mr. Perez did not raise this issue at

sentencing, it is forfeited.

{¶4} “An accused’s failure to raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import in the

trial court forfeits all but plain error . . . .” State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 3. To establish

plain error, an appellant must demonstrate three things: “that ‘an error occurred, that the error was

obvious, and that there is “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,”’” State v.

Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407, ¶ 8, quoting State v. McAlpin 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 Under these

circumstances, “intervention by a reviewing court is warranted only under exceptional

circumstances to prevent injustice.” Id. at ¶ 8. When an appellant forfeits an allied-offense

argument and fails to argue plain error on appeal, this Court will not develop an argument on his

behalf. State v. Yoho, 2024-Ohio-1725, ¶ 30 (9th Dist.).

{¶5} Mr. Perez did not raise the issue of allied offenses in the trial court, so he has

forfeited all but plain error on appeal. See Rogers at ¶ 3. He has not developed a plain-error 3

argument, however, and this Court declines to develop one on his behalf. See Yoho at ¶ 30. Mr.

Perez’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.

III.

{¶6} Mr. Perez’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Wayne County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT

FLAGG LANZINGER, P. J. SUTTON, J. CONCUR. 4

APPEARANCES:

JONATHAN PEREZ, pro se, Appellant.

ANGELA WYPASEK, Prosecuting Attorney, and JOSEPH F. SALZGEBER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.