State v. Conn, 2023 Ohio 2669

Defendant Justin Conn pleaded guilty to four counts of obstructing official business (felonies) and four counts of failure to stop after an accident (misdemeanors) arising from a series of collisions in Jan. 2022 during which he fled the scene.
PSI and plea colloquy describe multiple collisions at different intersections over about a mile, injuries to drivers, a nearby school bus, and law‑enforcement reports and searches; Conn admitted leaving and that his conduct hampered investigation.
At sentencing the court imposed 8 months on each obstruction count (ordered to run consecutively) and 90 days on each failure‑to‑stop count (concurrent), for an aggregate 32‑month term, plus $2,750 restitution.
Conn appealed arguing (1) the four obstruction counts should have merged as allied offenses and (2) the court failed to make the mandatory R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing to justify consecutive terms.
The appellate court held merger was not plain error given factual differences (locations, multiple reports), but vacated the consecutive sentences for the obstruction counts because the proportionality finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) was not made on the record at the sentencing hearing and remanded for limited resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether four obstructing‑official‑business counts should merge as allied offenses	State: offenses dissimilar—separate victims, multiple reports and different locations; may convict on all	Conn: single course of conduct; one investigation; same animus; charges should merge	Merger not plain error; court reasonably could treat counts separately given differing circumstances and reports
Whether trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing to impose consecutive terms	State: record shows court considered need to protect public and Conn's history; entry contains findings	Conn: mandatory findings (esp. proportionality) were not made on the record at the hearing	Court erred: appellate court could not discern proportionality finding from hearing; consecutive order vacated and case remanded for resentencing on obstruction counts

State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (sets allied‑offenses test: conduct, animus, import)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing; reasons need not be talismanic)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (plain‑error framework quoted for appellate intervention)
State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279 (clarifies plain‑error elements and prejudice standard)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (origin of plain‑error doctrine principles)
State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (remand for limited resentencing when court failed to make required consecutive‑sentence findings)