State v. Love, 194 Ohio App. 3d 16

Love was convicted after a 2007 jury trial of attempted murder with a firearm specification, felonious assault, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping; in 2009 this court affirmed, and the Ohio Supreme Court reversed in part, remanding for resentencing.
At resentencing in August 2010, the state elected to proceed on the more serious offense, and the court imposed a maximum ten-year sentence for attempted murder, consecutive to the firearm specification and other sentences for a total of 43 years.
Love challenged the resentencing as to whether aggravated robbery and kidnapping merged, arguing they were allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25; the prior appeal rejected this on the basis of separate animus.
The law-of-the-case doctrine bound the resentencing court to the appellate determination from Love’s first appeal, and no intervening inconsistent Supreme Court decision affected that ruling.
The court held Love was not prejudiced by the failure to merge the two offenses and overruled the first assignment of error; subsequent issues raised included constitutional proportionality and sentencing procedure, all resolved in Love’s favor in part or rejected as non-meritorious.
The court ultimately affirmed the judgment, concluding the sentence was not contrary to law and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 2010 sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether aggravated robbery and kidnapping merged as allied offenses	Love asserts merger was required under R.C. 2941.25.	Love contends the offenses share a single animus; merger required.	Law-of-the-case barred merger; no error in sentencing.
Whether the 43-year sentence violates the Eighth Amendment	Love argues the aggregate term is cruel and unusual.	Court relied on the violent conduct and history to justify the term.	Sentence not cruel or unusual given statutory range and record.
Whether consecutive sentences and lack of explicit findings were improper	Love argues failure to make statutorily required findings and minimum-term error.	Foster/Ice/Hodge principles do not require such findings or minimum terms.	No reversible error; Foster governs; no contrary findings required.

State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (2010-Ohio-2) (state may elect which allied offense to pursue on remand)
State v. Love, 124 Ohio St.3d 560 (2010-Ohio-1421) (remand/appeal context for multiple punishments)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (sentencing and allied offenses framework)
State v. Akemon, 173 Ohio App.3d 709 (2007-Ohio-6217) (animus and multiple offenses discussion)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (sentence within range; no need for judicial findings)
State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 (1999) (statutory review and standard of review principles)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (limits on appellate remand corrections)