Stat v. Forshey, 2016 Ohio 5809

Daniel Forshey pleaded guilty to: 1 count pandering obscenity involving a minor; 5 counts illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material/performance; 1 count pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor.
Sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 10.5 years in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.
At sentencing Forshey did not raise an allied-offense/merger claim; he raised it on appeal, invoking plain-error review.
The presentence report and prosecutor identified multiple victims: Forshey’s daughter and son, a 14‑year‑old boy from Kentucky, and several unidentified nude juvenile females (including a prepubescent girl in a video).
The State argued offenses involved different victims and therefore were of dissimilar import under R.C. 2941.25(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether certain counts (counts 14–17) were allied offenses requiring merger	Forshey: convictions may be allied offenses of similar import committed with the same conduct and should merge	State: offenses involved multiple, distinct victims so they are of dissimilar import and may be separately convicted	Court: No plain error shown; offenses involved different victims per record, so dissimilar import and no merger required

State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (offenses are of dissimilar import when they involve separate victims or separate, identifiable harms)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (2015) (plain-error burden on defendant to show reasonable probability allied-offense merger applies)