Background
William D. McGee was indicted in April 2019 on felonious assault with specification, two counts of improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation or school safety zone with specifications, and having weapons while under disability. In July 2021, a jury convicted McGee of the first three counts, and the trial court found him guilty of the fourth count following a bench trial.
At sentencing in September 2021, McGee received a total of 17 years imprisonment, with firearm specification sentences imposed consecutively to each other and to the base offense sentences. McGee’s direct appeal was affirmed in 2023, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction in 2024. Nearly two years after his direct appeal concluded, McGee filed a motion for resentencing in April 2025, arguing that the consecutive imposition of firearm specification sentences violated due process, double jeopardy, equal protection, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s denial of resentencing. The court first addressed the procedural posture: because McGee filed his motion nearly two years after his direct appeal concluded, it was subject to the strict standards for untimely postconviction petitions under Ohio law. McGee could only obtain relief by demonstrating new facts or newly recognized retroactive constitutional rights that would prevent any reasonable factfinder from finding him guilty—a showing he failed to make.
On the merits, the court rejected all three substantive arguments. Regarding firearm specifications, the court held that specifications are sentencing enhancements, not separate criminal offenses. Therefore, the consecutive sentencing statute applies only to “multiple offenses,” not specifications. Because firearm specifications are not offenses, they cannot form the basis for double jeopardy claims—the Double Jeopardy Clause protects only against multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense, and specifications are not offenses. The court found McGee’s cited precedent, State v. Beatty, distinguishable because it addressed statutory interpretation rather than constitutional rights.
The court also rejected McGee’s equal protection argument, finding that McGee failed to provide adequate briefing and that courts are not required to construct full-blown constitutional claims from convoluted reasoning. Finally, on ineffective assistance of counsel, McGee failed to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test. He did not show deficient performance by counsel or that counsel’s performance prejudiced his defense. Critically, the court applied res judicata, holding that McGee’s sentencing arguments could have been raised on direct appeal and were therefore barred from postconviction review.
Key Takeaways
- Firearm specifications are sentencing enhancements, not separate criminal offenses, and therefore the consecutive sentencing statute does not apply to them as separate offenses.
- Double jeopardy protections do not apply to sentencing enhancements or specifications because they are not separate offenses; defendants receive no double jeopardy protection for multiple punishment of enhancements.
- Untimely postconviction petitions face steep barriers to relief: a defendant must show either newly discovered facts or newly recognized retroactive constitutional rights affecting guilt, not mere sentencing arguments.
- Res judicata bars sentencing errors that could have been raised on direct appeal from being relitigated in postconviction proceedings, even if new case law is later decided.
- Adequate appellate briefing is required; courts will not construct complex constitutional arguments from insufficient or convoluted reasoning in briefs.
Why It Matters
This decision crystallizes Ohio’s framework for firearm specifications and has substantial practical implications for sentencing. By classifying specifications as enhancements rather than separate offenses, the court removes them from the protection of double jeopardy doctrine and from statutory merger requirements, allowing prosecutors and courts considerable flexibility in imposing consecutive sentences for firearm specifications. This also clarifies that courts will enforce strict compliance with postconviction petition deadlines and procedural requirements—defendants must raise sentencing issues on direct appeal or risk permanent bar through res judicata.
For criminal defendants in Ohio, the decision underscores the critical importance of comprehensive direct appeals that address sentencing issues contemporaneously, rather than waiting for subsequent case law that may not qualify as “new constitutional rights” under postconviction standards. The court’s emphasis on res judicata and procedural bar means that tactical or strategic decisions to defer sentencing arguments to postconviction proceedings may result in total loss of appellate remedies.