State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St. 3d 398

Ford was charged with improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation (R.C. 2923.161), inducing panic (R.C. 2917.31), and using a weapon while intoxicated (R.C. 2923.15), plus a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145 and 2929.14(D).
A jury found Ford guilty on all counts and that he possessed a firearm during the offense.
The trial court sentenced Ford to 3 years on count 1, and 30 days each on counts 2 and 3, with counts 2 and 3 running concurrently to count 1.
The court imposed a mandatory 3-year sentence for the firearm specification, to be served before and consecutively to the count 1 sentence.
Ford appealed, arguing the underlying offense and the firearm specification were allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25.
The court of appeals held the firearm specification is not a separate criminal offense and thus not subject to merger under R.C. 2941.25.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the discharge-a-firearm offense and the firearm specification allied offenses?	Ford argues they are allied offenses of similar import.	State argues the firearm specification is not a criminal offense and does not merge.	No; they are not allied offenses of similar import.
Do penalties for a firearm specification merge with the predicate offense under R.C. 2941.25?	Spec asserts merger applies to offenses; the spec merges with the offense.	Spec argues it is a sentencing enhancement, not a separate offense, so no merger.	Penalties for a specification do not merge with its predicate offense.

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (requires merger of allied offenses of similar import)
State v. Elko, 2004-Ohio-5209 (Ohio App.) (discharge of firearm and firearm specification allied-offense analysis conflict)
State v. Draggo, 65 Ohio St.2d 88 (1981) (definition of criminal offense; elements must come from statute)