State v. Jack, 2017 Ohio 9260

On June 3, 2015 police arranged a Craigslist sting and arrested Randolph Jack attempting to sell a 2014 Caterpillar skid steer that matched identifiers from a Virginia theft report; Jack’s truck and trailer were impounded.
Inventory of the truck revealed methamphetamine and bolt cutters; Jack’s phone contained evidence relating to the skid steer and a stolen boat.
A Geauga County grand jury indicted Jack on six counts (including Receiving Stolen Property and Possessing Criminal Tools); two counts were later dismissed and he waived a jury trial.
Following a bench trial, the court convicted Jack of Receiving Stolen Property (R.C. 2913.51) and Possessing Criminal Tools (R.C. 2923.24) and sentenced him to consecutive maximum terms totaling 30 months.
On direct appeal the judgment was affirmed; this court reopened the appeal limited to whether the two convictions were allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25 and whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising merger.

Issue	State's Argument	Jack's Argument	Held
Whether Receiving Stolen Property and Possessing Criminal Tools are allied offenses requiring merger under R.C. 2941.25	Offenses were committed separately and with separate animus: possession of criminal tools (attaching trailer, transporting to sell) occurred at a different time and for a different immediate motive than receiving the stolen skid steer	The acts arose from the same conduct and single animus (to dispose of the stolen skid steer); only one victim and one harm exist, so convictions should merge	Court held offenses were not allied — they were committed separately and with separate animus, so separate convictions and consecutive sentences were permitted
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising merger on direct appeal	No — merger argument was without merit because offenses were factually separate under Ruff/Johnson analysis	Counsel should have raised merger; failure prejudiced Jack	Court held counsel was not ineffective because the underlying merger claim lacked merit

State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (discusses R.C. 2941.25 and double-jeopardy protections)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (establishes the Ruff three-question allied-offense analysis)
State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (applies conduct-focused allied-offense inquiry under Ruff)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (addresses standard of review for allied-offense determinations)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (discusses merger and related sentencing principles)
State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126 (defines "animus" as immediate motive)
State v. Moss, 69 Ohio St.2d 515 (ancillary authority on allied-offense analysis)
Maumee v. Geiger, 45 Ohio St.2d 238 (addresses the purpose of R.C. 2941.25 and avoiding "shotgun" convictions)