State v. Anderson, 2012 Ohio 3347

Anderson pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and to kidnapping after a bank robbery at Fifth Third Bank on Erie Ave., Cincinnati, with co-defendants Cooper and Jackson; ten patrons were present during the robbery.
The bank robbery involved jumping the counter, taking cash, and selecting victims; a dye pack caused a disruption during the escape.
The trial court sentenced Anderson to six years for aggravated robbery plus a consecutive firearm spec, and six years for kidnapping to be served concurrently, totaling nine years.
Anderson challenged (1) whether aggravated robbery and kidnapping were allied offenses meriting merger under R.C. 2941.25, and (2) whether the court properly notified him of postrelease-control obligations.
The court found merit in both challenges: it vacated the aggravated robbery and kidnapping sentences and remanded for resentencing on only one of those offenses, and it held that postrelease-control notification must be addressed during the resentencing proceeding.
The opinion notes Johnson-based conduct-focused analysis and cites Cooper to discuss whether the same conduct supports allied offenses and whether a separate animus exists against the victim(s).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are aggravated robbery and kidnapping allied offenses meriting merger under 2941.25?	State argued that multiple punishments may be warranted when separate animus or victims exist.	Anderson argued merger applies if conduct was the same and lacked separate animus.	Yes; they were allied offenses (no separate animus) and must be merged; remand for resentencing on one offense.
Was there proper postrelease-control notification at sentencing?	State contends notification was required and failure undermines legality.	Anderson contends notification issue should be resolved during allied-offense resentencing.	Notification error requires remand for sentencing procedures addressing postrelease control.

Johnson v. United States, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (conduct-focused allied-offense analysis; determines merger based on conduct)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-1) (plain-error review of allied-offense merger; conduct focus)
State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126 (1979-Ohio-) (intent of merger depends on whether offenses share independent animus)
State v. Chaffer, 2010-Ohio-4471 (1st Dist. No. C-090602) (illustrates separate animus where victim movements increase risk of harm apart from robbery)
State v. Cooper, 2012-Ohio-555 (1st Dist.) (co-defendant bank robbery; allied-offense issue influenced by Johnson/Underwood line of cases)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 2010 (2010-Ohio-2) (syllabus on merger and resentencing when allied offenses)