State v. Forney, 2013 Ohio 3458

Forney was convicted after pleading guilty to two Failure to Report a Crime counts, and one each of Complicity to Tampering with Evidence and Obstructing Justice, with related vehicle forfeiture specifications.
The underlying events involve Sacco’s stabbing and subsequent murder, followed by dismemberment and transport of body parts in Forney’s vehicle.
The trial court sentenced Forney to 30 days on Failure to Report, 36 months for Obstructing Justice, and 36 months for Complicity to Tampering with Evidence, with the latter two consecutive.
Forney challenged (1) merger of the two felony counts for purposes of sentencing, (2) forfeiture procedure, (3) post-release control, and (4) imposition of consecutive sentences.
The vehicle used to transport body parts was ordered forfeited; Forney did not object to the forfeiture at the time.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the offenses were not allied offenses, proportionality review was waived by lack of objection, post-release control was properly imposed, forfeiture complied with law, and consecutive sentences were appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the offenses allied offenses of similar import?	Forney: same animus; merger required.	State: separate animus; no merger.	Not allied offenses; no merger required.
Was the forfeiture of the vehicle properly considered without a proportionality review?	Forney waived objection to forfeiture; proportionality review not required.	State: proportionality review governs forfeiture; waivers apply when no objection.	Waiver applied; no error in forfeiture.
Was post-release control imposed properly (mandatory vs discretionary)?	Forney argues mandatory term; appellate review needed.	State: discretionary post-release control appropriate.	Proper discretionary post-release control; not mandatory.
Are the consecutive sentences unsupported or an abuse of discretion?	Consecutive terms not warranted given passive role.	State: proper findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and related statutes.	Consecutive sentences valid and not an abuse of discretion.

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (allied-offenses analysis: same conduct or separate animus determines merger)
State v. Jackson, 2012-Ohio-2335 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24430 (2012)) (burden on defendant to prove entitlement to merger)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008) (set framework for analyzing consecutive vs concurrent sentences and allied offenses)
State v. Luong, 2012-Ohio-4519 (12th Dist.) (proportionality review for forfeiture as punishment; acquiescence can affect error analysis)
In re Forfeiture of Property of Rhodes, 2013-Ohio-3046 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25464 (2013)) (strict construction of forfeiture statutes)
State v. Lilliock, 70 Ohio St.2d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1982) (forfeiture statutes strict construction; proportionality considerations)