State v. Lane, 2014 Ohio 562

Background

In September 2012 Mark A. Lane broke a window at his former girlfriend Tammy Hays' occupied home, entered with a firearm, and later shot Hays in the leg.
Lane was indicted on two counts of aggravated burglary and two counts of felonious assault, each with firearm specifications; he pled guilty to one aggravated burglary (R.C. 2911.11(A)(2)) and one felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)) plus two specifications.
At sentencing the trial court rejected Lane's request to merge the convictions, imposed consecutive terms (6 years for aggravated burglary, 8 years for felonious assault, plus concurrent 1-year firearm specifications) for an aggregate 15-year prison term, and assessed court costs.
Lane appealed, raising three issues: (1) alleged error in refusing to merge allied offenses, (2) alleged error in imposing consecutive sentences, and (3) alleged failure to advise about court-cost/community-service consequences.
The appellate court reviewed merger de novo, applied the R.C. 2929.14(C) consecutive-sentence framework under the deferential R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard, and evaluated statutory changes to R.C. 2947.23 regarding court-cost notices.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lane)	Held
Whether aggravated burglary and felonious assault are allied offenses requiring merger	The offenses were dissimilar because burglary (A)(2) was completed upon entering with a weapon and intent; the assault occurred later, so convictions can stand separately	The offenses were the same conduct/animus: the shooting completed both offenses and were committed with the same purpose	Court: No merger — offenses were completed separately and with separate animus; convictions may be sentenced consecutively/separately
Whether consecutive sentences were improper	Consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public, not disproportionate, and supported by the defendant's criminal history and the serious/ unusual harm	Consecutive terms were imposed without proper consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and without satisfying statutory findings	Court: Affirmed consecutive sentences — trial court made required findings on the record and in the judgment entry; review did not clearly and convincingly show error
Whether court costs were improperly imposed without advising that nonpayment could lead to community service	Under the amended R.C. 2947.23, the trial court need only give community-service notice when imposing community-control/nonresidential sanctions; failure to give notice does not bar ordering community service later	Lane argued he was not notified that costs included jury fees and that nonpayment could lead to community service, requiring reversal of the costs portion	Court: No error — Lane received a prison sentence (not community control), statutory amendment governs, and the court was not required to give the community-service notice; costs affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (sets the allied-offenses test: whether the same conduct can constitute both offenses and whether offenses were committed by the same conduct/animus)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (Ohio 2012) (addresses appellate standard for reviewing R.C. 2941.25 merger questions)
State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126 (Ohio 1979) (defines "animus" as purpose or immediate motive under R.C. 2941.25)
State v. Smith, 131 Ohio St.3d 297 (Ohio 2012) (addresses trial-court obligations to inform defendants about court costs and consequences)