State v. Blanton, 2019 Ohio 1523

In November 2016, Blanton and two others fired shots toward 3370 Altamont Road; an eyewitness identified Blanton as the shooter and gunshot residue was found on his hands.
Blanton was bound over from juvenile court and charged with felonious assault (Count 1), discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises (Count 2), and carrying a concealed weapon (Count 3).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Blanton pleaded guilty to an amended count of attempted felonious assault with a one-year firearm specification, discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises (firearm specs deleted), and carrying a concealed weapon.
At sentencing the state argued Counts 1 and 2 do not merge because Count 1 had a specific victim (Raymond Bowling) and Count 2 victimized the public at large. Defense argued the offenses arose from a single animus and should merge.
The trial court rejected merger, found separate victims (Bowling vs. the public), and imposed consecutive sentences totaling six years.
On appeal Blanton challenged (1) merger of Counts 1 and 2 and (2) the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether attempted felonious assault and discharge of a firearm on/near prohibited premises merge under R.C. 2941.25	Counts are dissimilar because Count 1 has a specific victim (Bowling) and Count 2 harms the public at large	The offenses arose from the same animus and therefore are allied offenses that must merge	Court: No merger — offenses involve separate victims (Bowling vs. the public) and are dissimilar in import
Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Consecutive terms are necessary to protect public and punish; court made the required statutory findings at sentencing	Consecutive terms excessive given Blanton’s lack of adult record and facts do not show harm so great or unusual	Court: Affirmed — trial court made required findings on the record; record supports findings and sentence is not contrary to law

State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (sets allied-offense analysis focused on defendant’s conduct, animus, and whether offenses involve separate victims or separate harms)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must state statutory findings for consecutive sentences on the record and incorporate them into the sentencing entry but need not state reasons)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) limited to clear-and-convincing standard regarding statutory findings or sentences contrary to law)
State v. Johnson, 110 N.E.3d 863 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2018) (discharging a firearm on/near prohibited premises is a strict liability offense; victim is the public at large; offenses against different victims do not merge)
State v. James, 53 N.E.3d 770 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2015) (confirming public-at-large as the victim for discharge-on/near-prohibited-premises offenses)