State v. Piscura, 2013 Ohio 1793

Piscura was convicted of multiple counts arising from a Russell Avenue firebombing; Veto aided in construction and delivery of Molotovs.
Counts 1,3,5,7 charged aggravated arson; Counts 2,4,6 charged attempted murder; Counts 8 and 9 charged unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance and possessing criminal tools.
State conceded some merger for sentencing; the court sentenced on Counts 2,4,6,7 to six years and Counts 8,9 to six months, all concurrent.
On appeal, Piscura challenged the trial court for failing to merge allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25.
The court held Counts 8 and 9 merge with each other but do not merge with Counts 2,4,6,7; remanded for resentencing on the remaining allied offense(s).
The dissent would hold Counts 8 and 9 are not allied offenses and should not merge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether all nine counts are allied offenses and must merge	Piscura maintains all counts share the same animus	Piscura argues the offenses were separate with different animus	Counts 8 and 9 merge; counts 2,4,6,7 do not; partial merger and remand.

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (establishes allied offenses framework: same conduct and single act or single state of mind requires merger)
State v. Fairfield, 2012-Ohio-5060 (8th Dist. 2012) (possession offenses can merge when same conduct and instrumentality supports both)
State v. Ayers, 2011-Ohio-4719 (12th Dist. 2011) (same conduct can support multiple offenses with separate animus not merged)
State v. Sludder, 2012-Ohio-4014 (3d Dist. 2012) (breaks in conduct can prevent merger even if close in time)
State v. Roberts, 2009-Ohio-298 (3d Dist. 2009) (considers case-specific factors and temporal continuum in allied offenses)