State v. Corrao, 2011 Ohio 2517

Corrao was charged on a 35-count indictment for crimes from Jan 1, 2006 to Jan 31, 2009.
Plea: Corrao pled guilty to seven counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, 16 counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, one count of sexual battery, one count of corrupting another with drugs, and one count of possession of criminal tools; nine counts were nolled.
At sentencing, the court imposed multiple prison terms totaling 10 years, with several counts running consecutively.
The court found the pandering and illegal-use-of-minor-in-nudity offenses to be separate sentences.
On appeal, Corrao challenges (1) merger/allied offenses, (2) consecutive-sentencing findings, (3) proportionality, and (4) nunc pro tunc adjustments to sentence.
The court remanded for merger determinations on allied offenses, while otherwise affirming in part and reversing in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are pandering and illegal-use-off-minor in nudity offenses allied and thus required to merge?	Corrao argues merger is required for allied offenses of similar import.	State argues no need to merge because not clearly allied under Johnson/Underwood.	Yes; merger required; vacate pandering and illegal-use sentences; remand for merger.
Did the court err by imposing consecutive sentences without proper findings after Foster/Ice?	Corrao contends Ice revived the need for factual findings prior to consecutive sentences.	State contends Hodge rejects Ice revival of former findings requirements.	No error; guidelines not revived; no mandatory findings required; assignment overruled.
Is Corrao's sentence disproportionate to similarly situated offenders?	Corrao asserts disproportionate punishment given lack of prior history and comparable sentences.	State cites multiple victims and ongoing criminal activity supporting severity.	Not contrary to law; sentence reasonable under Kalish framework; proportionality not shown.
Did nunc pro tunc entries alter the sentence outside Corrao's presence?	Corrections post-sentencing altered terms without in-court appearance.	Entries simply reflected what occurred in open court and corrected the record.	No error; nunc pro tunc entries proper; sentence corrected to reflect in-court pronounce- ment.

State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-1) (allied offenses merger mandatory; plain error if not applied)
State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St.3d 1 (2004-Ohio-6087) (allied offenses 'similar import' doctrine framework)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (test shifting from abstract elements to conduct-based analysis)
State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (1999-Ohio-705) (overruled by Johnson on allied offenses similarity test)
State v. Foster, None (2006-Ohio-856) (held portions of consecutive-sentencing provisions unconstitutional)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (Ice does not revive former mandatory-finding requirements)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (reaffirmed that some facts need not be determined by jury for consecutive sentences)
State v. Torres, Cuyahoga App. No. 95646 (2011-Ohio-350) (application of Ice/Hodge in Ohio appellate context)