State v. Moore, 2018 Ohio 2111

Shane Moore pled guilty to two counts of second-degree robbery (different dates) and one count of third-degree abduction (all arising from robberies using a BB gun); plea dismissed other counts; PSI ordered.
Offenses occurred on Feb. 6–8, 2016; the Speedway incident (Feb. 8) involved Moore jumping the counter, pursuing an employee who tried to flee, returning him at gunpoint, forcing registers open, and taking cash.
At sentencing the court imposed maximum terms: 8 years + 8 years + 3 years, to run consecutively (19 years), plus a consecutive 1-year revocation of post-release control — aggregate 20 years.
Moore did not raise allied-offense merger at sentencing; appellate counsel initially filed an Anders brief; new counsel appointed when a non-frivolous sentencing issue was identified.
Trial court made and journalized the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentencing findings and reviewed the PSI and surveillance video.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether robbery (Count 5) and abduction (Count 7) for the Speedway incident are allied offenses of similar import	State: the offenses were distinct in import and animus because Moore pursued and restrained an employee after the robbery attempt — separate acts supporting separate convictions	Moore: restraint was incidental to robbery; offenses should merge (citing Winn)	Court: Not allied. Pursuit/escort back to register were separate acts showing separate animus; no plain error in failing to merge
Whether consecutive sentences were unsupported by the record	State: consecutive terms were supported by defendant’s extensive criminal history, PSI, video, and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	Moore: aggregate 19-year sentence disproportionate; record does not support that harm was so great/unusual or that consecutive terms were necessary; not the minimum sanction	Court: Findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were supported; given Moore’s history and facts, consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking merger of Counts 5 and 7	State: counsel not deficient because offenses were not allied; no prejudice	Moore: counsel should have sought merger, which would have avoided consecutive sentencing impact	Court: No ineffectiveness — merger was not warranted, so counsel’s failure to move was not deficient

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standard for appointed counsel to brief frivolous appeals)
State v. Winn, 905 N.E.2d 154 (Ohio 2009) (discusses when display/use of a weapon during theft can constitute forcible restraint for kidnapping/aggravated robbery analysis)
State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (framework for allied-offense analysis: import, separate conduct, separate animus)
State v. Earley, 49 N.E.3d 266 (Ohio 2015) (adopting Ruff’s three-part allied-offense inquiry)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (requirements for imposing consecutive sentences and overcoming statutory presumption of concurrent terms)