State v. Eblin, 2020 Ohio 810

In October–November 2018 Jessica Eblin and Joseph Hodge occupied Miranda Thomas’s Roseville residence, threatened her, burned some of her belongings, and forged a deed to Thomas’s home.
The forged deed was used in a court proceeding in mid-November and later recorded at the Muskingum County Recorder’s Office on November 30, 2018.
Eblin was indicted on multiple counts (including burglary, forgery, uttering, tampering, vandalism, and RICO/pattern-of-corrupt-activity); charges were amended, she pled guilty to all amended counts.
The trial court merged the two burglary counts and the two RICO counts, sentenced Eblin to an aggregate 12-year term, and ordered restitution of $184,900.00.
On appeal Eblin challenged (1) the trial court’s failure to merge convictions for forgery and forgery by uttering, (2) the restitution order as entered without proper consideration of ability to pay, and (3) trial counsel’s effectiveness (failure to object to merger, restitution, and to request waiver of court costs).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Eblin)	Held
Whether forgery and forgery-by-uttering should have merged as allied offenses	Offenses caused separate, identifiable harms and occurred separately (forgery in Oct.; use/uttering in Nov.); thus dissimilar import	Same animus: deed was forged to be uttered; offenses should merge under R.C. 2941.25	Court: Not allied — different conduct, separate harm/timing/animus; no plain error in failing to merge
Whether trial court erred by ordering $184,900 restitution without considering ability to pay	State sought $184,900 based on victim's itemized losses; acknowledged restitution unlikely collectible but requested amount	Court failed to consider Eblin’s present and future ability to pay before imposing restitution	Court: No plain error — record (PSI) and on-the-record statements show court considered PSI and ability to pay; restitution order affirmed
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to merger, restitution, and for failing to move to waive court costs	Counsel’s performance was reasonable; objections would not have changed outcome (no reasonable probability of different result)	Counsel’s failures deprived Eblin of effective assistance and caused prejudice	Court: No ineffective assistance — defendant failed to show prejudice as to merger, restitution, or waiver of costs; claim denied

State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (sets three-factor allied-offense test: conduct, animus, import)
State v. Thomas, 92 N.E.3d 821 (Ohio 2017) (clarifies plain-error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))
State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (appellant bears burden to demonstrate plain error)
State v. Barnes, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2001) (plain error to be noticed only with utmost caution)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (reasonable-probability standard for prejudice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Dean, 54 N.E.3d 80 (Ohio 2015) (standards for assessing prejudice from failure to seek waiver of court costs)