State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St. 3d 385

Background

Defendant Frank Rogers was indicted on multiple counts including receiving stolen property (RSP) for a stolen truck and for the truck’s tires/rims, and possessing criminal tools (PCT); separately he was charged with two RSP counts involving different victims (pawned jewelry).
Rogers pled guilty; the trial court imposed separate sentences for each count and ordered consecutive terms, producing an aggregate eight-year term; Rogers did not object at sentencing.
On appeal Rogers first argued that some convictions should have merged under Ohio’s allied-offenses statute (R.C. 2941.25); the Eighth District (en banc) held the trial court committed plain error by failing to inquire into merger for offenses that were facially possibly allied and remanded.
The en banc decision certified conflicts with other Ohio appellate decisions and presented three certified questions to the Ohio Supreme Court about plain error, waiver/forfeiture of allied-offense claims, and whether multiple victims in a single transaction permit multiple RSP convictions.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that failure to raise allied-offense merger at trial forfeits the claim (not waive), plain-error review applies and the defendant bears the burden to show a reasonable probability of prejudice, and that offenses against multiple victims can be dissimilar import under R.C. 2941.25.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court commits plain error when multiple offenses present a facial allied-offense question but the court fails to determine merger at sentencing	Rogers: court must inquire whenever offenses "can be construed" as allied; failure to do so is error the court must notice	State: error is forfeited if not raised; only obvious plain error justifies reversal; guilty plea waives nothing here	Held: No per se duty to inquire; failure to raise at trial forfeits the issue and plain-error relief requires defendant show reasonable probability of prejudice; Rogers did not meet burden.
Whether failure to raise allied-offense issue or object at trial constitutes waiver or forfeiture of double-jeopardy/merger rights	Rogers: double-jeopardy/merger is statutory/constitutional and cannot be waived by inaction at sentencing	State: plea and silence at sentencing preclude the claim; remedy via postconviction may be available	Held: Forfeiture — failure to timely assert merger forfeits the claim; it is not an automatic waiver. Plain-error review remains available.
Whether receiving/retaining/disposing of property of multiple persons in a single transaction permits multiple RSP convictions	Rogers: if property received in single transaction, convictions should merge; statutory value aggregation suggests single theft context	State: separate victims justify separate convictions	Held: Multiple victims can make offenses of dissimilar import; separate convictions/sentences for RSP involving different victims are permissible (citing State v. Ruff).

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (offenses against multiple victims can be dissimilar import under allied-offenses statute)
State v. Whitfield, 922 N.E.2d 182 (Ohio 2010) (merger occurs at sentencing; conviction for R.C. 2941.25 purposes is tied to sentence)
State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (defendant may expressly stipulate separate animus in plea; statutory interpretation in favor of defendant)
State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture principles; failure to object forfeits appellate review)
State v. Barnes, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2001) (plain-error standard requires obvious defect affecting substantial rights)
State v. Perry, 802 N.E.2d 643 (Ohio 2004) (rejects expanded categories of forfeited error not subject to plain-error prejudice requirement)
State v. Washington, 999 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 2013) (R.C. 2941.25 is primary guide to legislative intent on multiple punishments)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (plain-error/ineffective-assistance analog: defendant must show reasonable probability of prejudice)