State v. Boysel, 2014 Ohio 1272

Boysel was arrested for shoplifting razors in Springfield and found with a concealed .25 caliber handgun, under a disability for a prior felony drug conviction, and less than one gram of heroin.
Indicted in Clark County on multiple counts in case 12-CR-0738 and later in 13-CR-0066 with a Robbery count (with a firearm specification); all other charges were dismissed after pleas.
The trial court consolidated the cases, accepted Boysel’s guilty plea to Robbery (Felony 2) with a one-year firearm spec, to Having a Weapon Under Disability (Felony 3), and Possession of Heroin (Felony 5).
Sentencing occurred August 28, 2013, awarding a seven-year aggregate sentence: 3 years (Weapons Under Disability), 1 year (Heroin), 6 years (Robbery), and 1 year (firearm spec), with all sentences concurrent except the firearm spec.
The court noted factors including prior community control violations, a criminal history, absconding while on supervision, lack of remorse, and a high Ohio Risk Assessment Survey score.
Boysel challenged the sentencing as not following HB 86 procedures, and as an abuse of discretion, including a claim that offenses were allied and should have merged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court follow sentencing laws and consider HB 86 factors?	Boysel argues sentencing violated statutory rules and processes.	Boysel contends the court erred in sentencing under HB 86 and did not properly consider factors.	No reversible error; within statutory range and properly considered factors.
Was the sentence otherwise contrary to law or an abuse of discretion?	Boysel asserts sentencing deviated from statutory requirements or abused discretion.	Boysel maintains the court’s reasoning and choices were improper.	Sentence not contrary to law; no abuse of discretion found.
Are Having a Weapon Under Disability and Robbery allied offenses of similar import warranting merger?	Boysel contends merger was required under R.C. 2941.25.	Boysel argues separate animus or conduct justified non-merger.	Not allied; separate animus and conduct supported non-merger; no merger required.

State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759 (2d Dist. Montgomery (2013)) (establishes standard for reviewing HB 86 sentencing; clear and convincing standard v. abuse of discretion)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (guidance on calculating sentences within statutory range and consideration of sentencing factors)
State v. Shively, 2008-Ohio-3716 (2d Dist. Clark (2008)) (presumes factors were considered if sentence within range)
State v. Rutherford, 2009-Ohio-2071 (2d Dist. Clark (2009)) (principles for consideration of sentencing factors and within-range presumptions)
State v. Russell, 2011-Ohio-1738 (2d Dist. Clark (2011)) (presumption of compliance with 2929.11/2929.12 when within-range)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (two-part framework for allied offenses: same conduct and same animus)
State v. Grissom, 2014-Ohio-857 (2d Dist. Montgomery (2014)) (animus analysis for allied offenses under Johnson framework)
State v. Mooty, 2014-Ohio-733 (2d Dist. Montgomery (2014)) (separate completed offenses in sequence support non-merger)
State v. Turner, 2011-Ohio-6714 (2d Dist. Montgomery (2011)) (conducting offenses separately can preclude merger)
State v. Fairman, 2011-Ohio-6489 (2d Dist. Montgomery (2011)) (animus concept in merger analysis)