State v. Grega, 2013 Ohio 4094

Appellant Nathaniel Grega was convicted of robbery (A3) and petty theft following a January 20, 2012 shoplifting incident at Super K-Mart in Ashtabula, Ohio.
Loss-prevention staff observed the suspect, who placed multiple DVDs in his jacket and concealed them with Doritos; he fled exiting through doors.
Store security followed and confronted him; he grabbed a security employee and fled into a mall, later dropping several DVDs.
Deputies reviewed surveillance, and Deputy Thomas identified Grega in a still photo from the video, based on prior incarceration.
After trial, the court imposed concurrent sentences of 36 months (robbery) and 6 months (petty theft); on appeal, six assignments of error were raised, including arguments about juror bias, evidentiary challenges, and sentencing.
The Eleventh District sustained the fourth assignment (allied offenses) and remanded with instructions to allow the state to elect the offense and to merge the convictions at a new sentencing hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether robbery and petty theft are allied offences requiring merger	Grega argues the two offenses are allied and should merge.	State contends they are distinct offenses not mandatorily merged.	Yes, they are allied; merger required on remand.
Whether juror bias denied Grega a fair trial	Counsel should have challenged Juror Denunzio due to family connection with Super K-Mart.	Denunzio had no bias and trial strategy justified no challenge.	No reversible error; juror bias claim fails.
Whether 404(B) evidence and related testimony were properly admitted	Testimony about prior jail contact aided identification and was admissible.	Such testimony was improper character evidence.	Admissible under identity exception; no ineffectiveness shown.
Whether the trial court erred in imposing separate sentences for allied offenses	Consecutive sentences for robbery and theft should be merged.	Imposition of multiple sentences was proper.	Plain error to fail to merge; remanded for merger and single sentence.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support robbery and theft convictions; whether the weight supports the verdict	Evidence showed taking of DVDs and force used to detain the victim.	Evidence insufficient or inconsistent regarding force and theft.	Evidence was sufficient; verdict not against the manifest weight.

State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (2007-Ohio-4836) (jury selection is a matter of strategy; bias requires actual prejudice for reversal)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (allied-offense analysis requires merging when same conduct and same intent)
State v. Muncy, 2012-Ohio-2830 (11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2011-A-0066) (merger analysis for allied offenses under 2941.25 with same conduct and same animus)
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1 (2010-Ohio-1) (plain-error standard for allied-offense sentencing; merging when applicable)
State v. Kovacic, 2012-Ohio-219 (11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-065) (identity/other-crimes evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) and its limits)