In re A.G., 2014 Ohio 4927

Victim was accosted at gunpoint after withdrawing cash; assailant (A.G.), then 15, ordered victim into car and threatened to shoot him; encounter lasted ~3 minutes and a fingerprint linked A.G. to the scene.
Juvenile complaint charged aggravated robbery (with firearm specification) and kidnapping (with firearm specification); A.G. admitted to both counts and was adjudicated delinquent.
Juvenile court merged the firearm specifications but imposed separate 12-month commitments for aggravated robbery and kidnapping, served consecutively with a one-year firearm term — total minimum three years at DYS.
A.G. appealed, arguing (1) aggravated robbery and kidnapping are allied offenses that should have merged under double jeopardy principles and R.C. 2941.25, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the failure to merge.
The State initially conceded juveniles are entitled to the same double jeopardy protections as adults but later retracted; the court considered whether R.C. 2941.25 applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether aggravated robbery and kidnapping must merge in juvenile delinquency proceedings as allied offenses of similar import	A.G.: both offenses arose from the same conduct (holding at gunpoint/ordering into car); they are allied and should merge to avoid double jeopardy	State: juvenile delinquency proceedings are not criminal; R.C. 2941.25 (the allied-offenses statute) does not automatically apply to noncriminal juvenile adjudications	Court: In absence of legislative guidance, apply the Blockburger elements test to juvenile adjudications; under Blockburger the offenses are distinct because each requires an element the other does not, so no merger required
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to alleged allied offenses	A.G.: counsel should have objected to failure to merge, so representation was constitutionally deficient	State: not argued after retraction; moot if merger is not required	Court: Moot — because merger claim rejected, ineffective-assistance claim fails as nonjusticiable here

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (Double Jeopardy forbids successive prosecutions and multiple punishments)
Ohio v. Brown, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) (Double Jeopardy constrains sentencing and charging discretion)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (elements test for determining whether two offenses are the same)
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (clarifies protections against successive punishments and prosecutions)
Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975) (Double jeopardy protections apply in juvenile adjudications)
State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (1999) (R.C. 2941.25 reflects legislative intent on allied offenses)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (describes R.C. 2941.25 merger inquiry and legislative intent)