State v. Rogers, 2013 Ohio 1027

Frank Rogers, Jr. pleaded guilty in eight cases to counts including breaking and entering, receiving stolen property, possession of criminal tools, burglary, and drug possession.
He appeals challenging sentencing on allied-offenses merger, jail-time credit calculation, and postrelease-control consequences.
The court analyzes allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25(A) and State v. Johnson to determine if merger was required for sentencing.
Plain-error standards govern review when no objection was raised, with strict limits on correcting errors not raised at trial.
In CR-553806 and CR-545992, the court considers whether receiving stolen property counts were allied or should merge, including whether multiple victims affect merger.
The court ultimately affirms the judgment, finds jail-time credit issue moot due to a grant of credit, and holds that the postrelease-control warnings were given at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allied offenses should merge for sentencing	Rogers contends the allied offenses should merge in CR-553806 and CR-545992.	Rogers argues the offenses were allied and sentenced separately without merger.	No plain-error mandating merger; analysis under Johnson supports limited merger considerations.
Whether counts in CR-553806 involving two victims were allied	Two receiving-stolen-property counts against different victims should merge when appropriate.	Different victims preclude allied status and allow separate sentencing.	Counts against different victims were not found plainly allied; no merger required.
Whether counts in CR-545992 should merge (receiving stolen property and possession of tools)	Receiving-stolen-property counts and possession of criminal tools may be part of a single transaction.	Tools were not tied to any theft offense charged, so no merger.	No plain-error to merge; tools not tied to a theft offense charged.
Whether jail-time credit was properly calculated or appeal moot	Credit computation under R.C. 2967.191 was incorrect and deserves review.	Credit issue moot because Rogers received jail-time credit via a pro se motion.	Moot conclusion; credit granted resolves the issue.
Whether defendant was advised of postrelease-control consequences	Court failed to advise on postrelease-control consequences.	Court did advise Rogers of postrelease-control consequences at sentencing.	Assignment overruled; proper advisement evident.

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (allied offenses merger framework)
State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990) (plain-error review for sentencing)
State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (2011-Ohio-6524) (failure to object to consecutive sentences waives most errors)
State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (2010-Ohio-1017) (waiver of merger issue at sentencing)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007-Ohio-4642) (forfeiture/forfeiture of Foster-errors at sentencing)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-1) (plain-error for allied-offenses sentencing)
State v. Baker, 8th Dist. No. 97139 (2012-Ohio-1833) (record lacking facts supports plain error in allied offenses)
State v. Corrao, 8th Dist. No. 95167 (2011-Ohio-2517) (failure to inquire into allied offenses may be plain error)
State v. Snuffer, 8th Dist. Nos. 96480, 96481, 96482, 96483 (2011-Ohio-6430) (plain-error review in sentencing when record incomplete)
State v. Barrett, 8th Dist. No. 97614 (2012-Ohio-3948) (dissenting view on plain error in allied offenses)
State v. Quigley, 8th Dist. No. 96299 (2012-Ohio-2751) (en banc discretionary considerations on allied offenses)