State v. Rogers, 2013 Ohio 3235

Frank Rogers pleaded guilty in eight Cuyahoga County cases and was sentenced on multiple counts, including receiving stolen property and possession of criminal tools.
On appeal Rogers argued the trial court erred by failing to merge allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25, failed to compute jail-time credit, and failed to advise on postrelease-control consequences.
The record showed no sentencing inquiry into merger for at least one case (CR-545992); another case (CR-553806) involved receiving stolen property from different victims.
The Eighth District granted en banc review to resolve conflicts about the trial court’s duty to inquire about allied-offense merger when the record is silent.
The court remanded for further proceedings on the merger question in CR-545992, affirmed separate sentences in CR-553806, and resolved the jail-credit and postrelease-control claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to inquire about allied offenses when record is facially ambiguous	State: trial court need not sua sponte create facts; forfeiture rules apply	Rogers: trial court must inquire under R.C. 2941.25 when charges facially present a merger question	Court: Trial court has a duty to inquire and determine merger when a facial question exists; failure is plain error
Effect of defendant’s failure to raise merger at trial/sentencing	State: failure to object forfeits review except for plain error	Rogers: failure to raise does not bar review because double jeopardy is implicated	Court: Failure to raise does not bar appellate review; plain-error review applies and failure to inquire can be plain error
Impact of guilty plea on merger analysis	State: plea and joint recommendation may limit review	Rogers: guilty plea without stipulation does not waive merger protections	Court: Guilty plea alone does not waive merger; absence of a stipulation or factual basis does not relieve trial judge of duty
Remedy when record lacks facts to apply the Johnson/Blankenship test	State: appellate courts should decline relief if record is silent	Rogers: silence triggers trial-court duty to develop record; remand required	Court: If facial ambiguity exists and trial court failed to inquire, remand for fact-finding and merger determination is required

Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977) (Double Jeopardy prohibits multiple punishments for same offense)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (Multiple punishments permissible only if legislature intended them)
Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1981) (Legislative intent controls permissibility of cumulative punishments)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (Trial court commits plain error if it fails to merge allied offenses)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (Merger analysis must focus on the defendant’s conduct)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (Ohio 2012) (Appellate review of R.C. 2941.25 merger determinations is de novo; facts on record are crucial)
State v. Blankenship, 38 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1988) (Two-step allied-offense test comparing elements then conduct)
State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (Ohio 1999) (Earlier multifactor approaches to allied-offense analysis)
State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio 1990) (Failure to raise allied-offense issue at trial forfeits appellate review except for plain error)
State v. Kent, 68 Ohio App.2d 151 (8th Dist. 1980) (Trial court has affirmative duty to inquire into allied-offense applicability at plea/sentencing)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (Plain error doctrine applied narrowly)
State v. Gross, 97 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 2002) (Plain error elements summarized)