State v. Oglesby

Summary

The Court held that the resentencing court had authority to run all of Oglesby's sentences concurrently because they were imposed at the same time, rejecting the contrary statutory characterization by the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that Oglesby could not establish ineffective-assistance prejudice because the resentencing court heard the relevant mitigating evidence, expressly chose consecutive sentences, and there was no reasonable probability it would have imposed concurrent sentences for the separate robbery offenses. The Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.