State v. Newman, 2013 Ohio 2053

Newman burglarized two homes in Fayette County, stole money, a gun safe, and boxes, and then cracked open the safe/boxes to take guns.
A stolen van was observed driving near the burglary; Newman was found inside with the stolen firearms while in violation due to prior drug-trafficking conviction.
Newman pleaded guilty to multiple counts: burglary (two counts), theft, receiving stolen property, weapons under disability, grand theft, safecracking, and possessing criminal tools.
He received consecutive terms for the burglaries and concurrent terms for other offenses, totaling nine years.
Newman moved to vacate or correct sentences asserting ineffective assistance and failure to merge allied offenses; the trial court denied, and appeal followed.
On appeal, the court reviewed ineffective-assistance claims under Strickland and addressed whether offenses should merge under allied-offenses analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to convey a favorable plea offer?	Newman contends counsel failed to relay a favorable plea and instead sought trial for higher compensation.	Newman argues counsel inadequately communicated plea offers that could have benefited him.	No reversible error; no evidence of a favorable plea offered or withheld.
Was counsel ineffective for not advising against consecutive sentences or informing about them?	Counsel failed to inform Newman that sentences could run consecutively rather than concurrently.	Counsel should have advised on consecutive sentencing implications.	No prejudice shown; transcript missing, but plea form indicated potential consecutive terms; presumed proper Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
Should grand theft and safecracking be merged as allied offenses?	Counsel failed to argue merger of allied offenses (grand theft and safecracking).	Offenses are not allied because they involve separate conduct/animus.	Grand theft and safecracking are allied offenses subject to merger; trial court erred by not merging them; remand for merger and resentencing.
Were the two burglary convictions allied offenses subject to merger?	Newman claimed both burglaries should merge under Johnson test.	Burglary offenses were committed with distinct conduct/animus and should not merge.	Burglary convictions were not allied; no error in not merging them.

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (two-part allied-offenses test under R.C. 2941.25; same conduct and same animus → merge)
State v. Crosby, 12th Dist. Nos. CA2010-10-81, CA2011-02-013, 2011-Ohio-4907 (2011-Ohio-4907) (non-merger of safecracking and grand theft may occur; case distinguished by facts)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (2010-Ohio-2) (remains binding when state elects which allied-offense to pursue after merger ruling)
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1 (124 Ohio St.3d 365) (prejudice from multiple convictions even with concurrent sentences)
State v. Edwards, 11th Dist. No. 2012-L-034 (2013-Ohio-1290) (allied-offense outcomes vary by case; Johnson framework applied)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (defense counsel must communicate formal plea offers)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance standard: performance below objective reasonableness plus prejudice)
Linville, 12th Dist. No. CA2002-06-057, 2003-Ohio-818 (2003-Ohio-818) (appellate burden to provide transcript for review; absence hinders review)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (transcript and record requirements on appeal)
State v. Richardson, 12th Dist. No. CA2012-06-043 (2013-Ohio-1953) (example of allied-offense merger discussion post-Crosby)