State v. Shalash (Slip Opinion), 148 Ohio St. 3d 611

Shalash was indicted in May 2012 on nine counts for trafficking in controlled substance analogs and related offenses, with several counts involving sale or offer to sell analogs and others for preparing shipments.
Counts 1,2,3,6,7 charged sale or offer to sell a controlled substance analog; Counts 4,5,8 charged preparing for shipment or delivery of a controlled substance analog; Count 9 charged pattern of corrupt activity.
Shalash pleaded no contest after challenging the indictment on the theory that trafficking in analogs was not illegal until December 2012.
The trial court sentenced Shalash to concurrent terms, the longest being 11 years.
The court of appeals affirmed, adopting a view that the definition of controlled substance analogs applied for purposes of trafficking.
A conflict was certified with several Tenth District cases over whether controlled substance analogs were criminalized as of October 17, 2011, the effective date of House Bill 64.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were controlled substance analogs criminalized as of Oct. 17, 2011?	Shalash: analogs not illegal until HB 334/64.	Shalash: analogs treated as controlled substances via 3719.013.	Yes; analogs criminalized by HB 64.
Does R.C. 3719.013 require treating analogs as controlled substances for all Revised Code provisions?	Analog not universally covered prior to 2012.	3719.013 mandates treating analogs as controlled substances for purposes of any provision.	Yes; mandatory treatment as controlled substances applies.

State v. Smith, 2014-Ohio-5303 (10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 14AP–154 and 14AP–155, 2014-Ohio-5303) (conflict about timing of criminalization for analogs)
State v. Mohammad, 2015-Ohio-1234 (10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 14AP-662 and 14AP-871, 2015-Ohio-1234) (conflict on analog criminalization timing)
State v. Mobarek, 2015-Ohio-3007 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-517, 2015-Ohio-3007) (conflict on analog criminalization timing)