State v. Miller, 2018 Ohio 2127

Taylor Miller pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)), two counts of third-degree abduction, and one count of fifth-degree theft; abduction and theft were merged into the robbery counts at sentencing.
The robbery occurred at a Huntington Bank where Miller presented a threatening note; one teller gave him $2,500 after another teller, frightened, handed the note to her.
The trial court refused to merge the two robbery counts and sentenced Miller to six years on each robbery count, to be served concurrently (aggregate six years).
The court ordered $2,500 restitution, imposed court costs, and notified Miller of mandatory postrelease control.
Miller appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) the two robbery convictions should have merged as allied offenses, (2) the court applied an improper “sentencing package” under State v. Saxon, and (3) the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to waive court costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two robbery convictions must merge as allied offenses	State: two robberies charged after conduct toward two bank employees supports separate convictions	Miller: the gravamen is the theft of Huntington’s property, so only one robbery victim (the bank) exists	Court: No merger — robbery is an offense against persons; two employee victims make the offenses of dissimilar import
Whether sentencing violated Saxon (sentencing-package doctrine)	State: trial court’s sentencing not affected; concurrent six-year terms imposed	Miller: court’s comment about focusing on total time indicates application of a sentencing package, violating Saxon	Court: No Saxon violation — despite the comment, sentences were imposed per count and ordered concurrent; sentencing-package doctrine not applicable
Whether denial of motion to waive court costs was an abuse of discretion	State: trial court properly imposed statutorily mandatory court costs and did not abuse discretion in refusing waiver	Miller: court’s denial (and denial of appointed appellate counsel/transcript) shows vindictiveness and warrants waiver	Court: No abuse — statute requires costs be included; waiver discretionary and record lacks evidence Miller cannot ever pay or that denial was vindictive

State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (explains allied-offenses test and when offenses are dissimilar in import)
State v. Williams, 983 N.E.2d 1245 (Ohio 2012) (de novo review for allied-offense questions)
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (rejected federal sentencing-package doctrine for Ohio sentencing)
State v. Clevenger, 871 N.E.2d 589 (Ohio 2007) (court costs may be imposed without regard to defendant's ability to pay)
State v. White, 817 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio 2004) (court must render judgment for prosecution costs despite indigency)
State v. Threatt, 843 N.E.2d 164 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for denial of cost-waiver motions)