State v. Kuhbander, 2012 Ohio 5315

Kuhbander was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated menacing, telecommunications harassment (R.C. 2917.21(B)), and telecommunications harassment with aggravated menacing (R.C. 2917.21(A)(3)) based on jail-telephone calls dated Oct. 28, 2010; acquitted on other October 22–31, 2010 calls.
Sentencing: 180 days in jail with credit for 50 days for the two convictions (aggravated menacing and telecommunications harassment B), to be served concurrently; no sentence imposed for telecommunications harassment with aggravated menacing.
Trial court sentence was stayed pending appeal.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief alleging no meritorious issues but raising possible claim that convictions were not supported by weight of the evidence; Kuhbander did not file a pro se brief.
This court initially found credibility of the complainant intact but identified a potential allied-offense-merger issue and remanded for briefing on merger, inviting new counsel to raise additional arguments.
State concedes that aggravated menacing and telecommunications harassment (A3) are allied offenses of similar import; the central issue is whether the other counts should merge for sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether telecom harassment B and aggravated menacing are allied offenses to be merged	Kuhbander contends no merger; multiple calls show separate animus.	Kuhbander argues single conduct with one animus, requiring merger under Johnson.	Partially sustained; merger required for B and aggravated menacing; remanded for resentencing on those offenses.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (Anders briefing procedure for frivolous-appeal claims)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010Ohio-6314) (test for allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25)
State v. Hale, 2012-Ohio-2662 (2d Dist. Clark No. 11 CA 33, 2012) (burden on defendant to show allied-offense merger under Johnson)