State v. Pettus (Slip Opinion), 168 N.E.3d 406

Lashawn Pettus was charged with four counts of theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(3)) for passing multiple fraudulent checks at four different banks; each count aggregated multiple checks presented to a single bank under R.C. 2913.61(C)(1).
Pettus moved to dismiss, arguing R.C. 2913.61(C)(1) permits aggregation only when the victim is an elderly person, a disabled adult, an active-duty service member, or a spouse of an active-duty member.
The trial court denied the motion; following a bench trial Pettus was found guilty. The First District affirmed (but remanded due to sentencing findings) and certified a conflict with the Twelfth District’s decision in State v. Phillips.
The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the certified-conflict case as improvidently certified, finding Phillips involved materially different facts (aggregation across multiple victims) and thus did not present the same question.
On the jurisdictional appeal, the Court reviewed R.C. 2913.61(C)(1) de novo and held the statute unambiguous: a series of offenses under R.C. 2913.02 (theft) may be aggregated regardless of the victim’s status; the elderly/disabled/military-spouse language limits aggregation of certain other listed violations, not R.C. 2913.02.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2913.61(C)(1) permits aggregation of thefts only when the victim is elderly/disabled/active-duty or spouse	Pettus: The "victim who is an elderly person or disabled adult" clause applies to all offenses listed in (C)(1), so aggregation is limited to those victim classes	State: The statute separates a series of R.C. 2913.02 offenses (theft) from other listed violations; theft-series are aggregated regardless of victim status	Court: Unambiguous statutory reading—series of R.C. 2913.02 thefts may be aggregated regardless of victim status; the victim-status clause applies to other listed violations
Whether the First District properly certified a conflict with the Twelfth District (Phillips)	First Dist.: Claimed conflict exists between decisions on aggregation under R.C. 2913.61(C)	State/Opposing: Phillips addressed aggregation across multiple victims and thus differs on the dispositive question	Court: Dismissed certified-conflict as improvidently certified because Phillips and Pettus involved materially different factual questions

Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 594 (1993) (requirements for a properly certified conflict between courts of appeals)
State ex rel. Natl. Lime & Stone Co. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 152 Ohio St.3d 393 (2017) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Summerville v. Forest Park, 128 Ohio St.3d 221 (2010) (apply plain statutory language when unambiguous)
Weaver v. Edwin Shaw Hosp., 104 Ohio St.3d 390 (2004) (every word and phrase of a statute should be given effect)
Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (apply plain language of statute if unambiguous)