State v. Koller, 2014 Ohio 450

Koller pleaded guilty to one count of receiving stolen property and one count of forgery, both fifth-degree felonies, after initial indictment of three counts.
The state alleged Koller possessed two checks stolen from his grandparents February 20–22, 2013, knowing they were obtained through theft.
The forgery count centered on uttering one of the checks at LCNB National Bank on February 20, 2013; the other check underlay the receiving stolen property conviction.
At sentencing, the court initially sought inpatient treatment but ultimately sentenced Koller to 18 months total (nine months on each count) to be served consecutively, and sua sponte declared portions of R.C. 2929.13 unconstitutional.
The court indicated the penalties were necessary and noted separation-of-powers concerns; defense counsel objected; the court later remanded.
On appeal, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing with proper notice regarding the constitutionality of R.C. 2929.13.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the offenses allied and must the sentences merge?	Koller’s possession of checks and fraudulent utterance were one continuous conduct.	The offenses arose from separate acts with different intent and timing.	Not allied; not merged; separate acts, different conduct.
Did the trial court err by sua sponte declaring R.C. 2929.13 unconstitutional without notice?	Court did not err; the statute is unconstitutional.	Procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to respond.	Error; due process violated; remand for new sentencing with proper notice.

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (test for allied offenses—same conduct and same state of mind)
State v. Willis, 192 Ohio App.3d 579 (Ohio App.3d 2011) (offenses based on different acts not allied)
State v. Bowlin, 2010-Ohio-1635 (12th Dist. Butler 2010) (different checks; offenses not allied)
State v. Tannreuther, 2014-Ohio-74 (12th Dist. Butler 2014) (PSI can inform allied-offense analysis)
In re K.A.G., 2013-Ohio-780 (12th Dist. Warren 2013) (due-process concerns with sua sponte constitutional ruling)