State v. Forney, 2013 Ohio 3034

Forney pled guilty to failure to report a crime, abuse of a corpse, gross abuse of a corpse, obstructing justice, and complicity to evidence tampering as part of a plea agreement that dismissed other charges.
The charges arose from Forney and Puccio dismembering and disposing of Jessica Sacco's body after Sacco was killed in a residence; Forney assisted in moving, dismembering, and transporting the body over several days.
Forney and Puccio transported the dismembered body to Butler County and slept in the van with the body before disposal.
The trial court imposed an aggregate ten-year sentence after merging two counts as allied offenses but declining to merge others.
Forney challenged the sentence as partially consecutive and maximum, and challenged allied-offense mergers from Counts 3/6 and Counts 8/9.
The appellate court upheld the prison sentence and denied merger for the challenged counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly imposed partially consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).	State argues sentence compliance with law; discretion exercised within statutory range.	Forney contends an abuse of discretion in weighing seriousness/recidivism and mitigating factors.	No abuse; consecutive-findings and reasons supported by record.
Whether the court erred by imposing maximum sentences on all counts.	State maintains statutory maximums comply with the sentencing framework.	Forney argues factors supporting maximum terms were improperly applied.	Maximum terms upheld; record supported seriousness and lack of mitigating factors.
Whether Counts 3 (gross abuse) and 6 (obstructing justice) are allied offenses Merger.	State contends offenses were not identical conduct given timing/location differences.	Forney argues they are allied offenses due to same dismemberment conduct.	Not allied; separate conduct with time/distance between Champaign to Butler County disposal.
Whether Counts 8 (complicity to evidence tampering) and Count 9 (obstructing justice) merge as allied offenses.	State asserts separate acts with distinct intents—to impair evidence vs to hinder apprehension.	Forney claims allied offense concept applies.	Not allied; distinct acts with different animus and targets.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (two-step sentencing review; compliance then abuse of discretion)
State v. Stevens, 2008-Ohio-5775 (2d Dist.) (step-two abuse-of-discretion review after statutory compliance)
State v. King, 2013-Ohio-2021 (2d Dist.) (clarifies sentencing compliance with 2929.11–12; scope of review)
State v. Nichols, 195 Ohio App.3d 323 (2d Dist. 2011) (distinguishes when maximum, consecutive sentences are warranted)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (new test for allied offenses under 2941.25; conduct-based merger)
State v. Willis, 2013-Ohio-2391 (2d Dist. Butler 2013) (de novo review of allied-offense merger rulings)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) (affords framework for determining merger of allied offenses)