State v. Ervin, 2015 Ohio 3688

Defendant Casey Ervin entered his former foster mother’s home disguised as a pet-sitter and stole multiple items, including a firearm and 74 Percocet pills; he sold the items and proceeds were not recovered.
Indicted on multiple counts: grand theft of a firearm (felony 3), theft of drugs (felony 4), petty theft, and two counts of receiving stolen property; pled guilty to grand theft (firearm) and theft of drugs in exchange for dismissal of remaining counts.
Ervin moved to suppress post-arrest statements; the trial court denied suppression, finding the statements voluntary.
At plea hearing the court advised Ervin that grand theft (firearm) carried a presumption of imprisonment and stated its view that if prison was imposed on both theft counts the sentences must run consecutively.
At sentencing the court rejected merger (allied offenses) and imposed 24 months for grand theft (firearm) and 10 months for theft of drugs, ordered to run consecutively; Ervin appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two theft convictions (grand theft of firearm; theft of drugs) are allied offenses subject to merger under R.C. 2941.25	State: offenses involved different victims and harms so they are dissimilar and need not merge	Ervin: thefts occurred in same incident with single animus and should merge	Court: Affirmed trial court — offenses involve separate victims (victim of gun theft was foster mother; victim of drug theft was her daughter), so not allied; no merger required
Whether consecutive sentences were improperly imposed without R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, instead relying on R.C. 2929.14(C)(3) / R.C. 2913.02(B)(4) mandate	State: R.C. 2929.14(C)(3) / R.C. 2913.02(B)(4) mandate that a prison term for grand theft of a firearm be served consecutively to any other prison term "previously or subsequently imposed," which includes simultaneously imposed terms	Ervin: phrase "previously or subsequently imposed" does not encompass simultaneously imposed sentences; when sentences are imposed together the court must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentencing findings	Court: Rejected Ervin’s argument — interpreted "previously or subsequently imposed" to include simultaneously imposed terms; therefore C(3) mandated consecutive service and C(4) findings were not required; affirmed consecutive sentences

State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (framework for appellate review of allied-offenses rulings)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (conduct-based test for allied offenses — whether same conduct can constitute both offenses and whether committed with single act/state of mind)
State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427 (allied-offenses analysis guidance)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (offenses dissimilar where separate victims or separate identifiable harms; three-part test: dissimilar import, separate acts, or separate animus)
State v. White, 18 Ohio St.3d 340 (a court may not order a sentence consecutive to a future sentence in futuro)
State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398 (firearm specification is a sentencing provision, not a separate offense)