State v. Babb, 2024 Ohio 2018

Ann M. Babb, a former church secretary at St. Paul United Church of Christ, pled guilty to grand theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(2)), misuse of credit cards (R.C. 2913.21(B)(2)), and tampering with records after stealing funds using checks and credit cards belonging to the church.
The total amounts stolen and misused were $95,648.29 via checks and $57,570.02 via credit cards, spanning 2019 to 2022.
The trial court accepted Babb's guilty plea, found it was entered knowingly and voluntarily, sentenced her to 18 months in prison, and ordered restitution.
Babb appealed, arguing that the offenses should have been aggregated or merged under Ohio's theft aggregation statute and that the sentencing failed to comply with R.C. 2947.06(B) regarding presentation of a forensic mitigation report.
The appellate court addressed Babb's two assignments of error: the aggregation/merger argument and the sentencing procedure claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grand theft and misuse of credit card charges should have been aggregated/merged under R.C. 2913.61(C)(1) or treated as allied offenses for sentencing	Babb argued both crimes arose from a single scheme and should be aggregated or merged for purposes of conviction/sentencing	State argued statutory language differentiates the two sets of offenses, allowing separate convictions and sentences	Court held offenses are distinct and not subject to aggregation or merger under R.C. 2913.61(C)(1) or allied offenses doctrine
Whether failure to present the forensic mitigation report in open court and in Babb's presence required reversal of sentence	Babb argued the sentencing violated R.C. 2947.06(B); thus, her sentence should be reversed	State argued issue not preserved at trial; no plain error occurred; court reviewed the report	Court held no plain error, found report considered, and no case law mandates reversal—affirmed sentence

State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (sets out the allied offenses doctrine—merger applies only to offenses arising from the same conduct)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (provides analysis on determining when offenses are allied for purposes of sentencing)
State v. Bailey, 171 Ohio St.3d 486 (Ohio 2022) (plain error doctrine requires conjunctive test)
State v. Brinkman, 169 Ohio St.3d 127 (Ohio 2022) (clarifies standard for plain error affecting substantial rights)