State v. Shanklin, 2014 Ohio 5624

Indicted in 2008 on five counts: aggravated theft (second-degree felony) and three counts of passing bad checks (fourth- and fifth-degree felonies) plus a second-degree felony for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity; bond set at $50,000.
Entered not guilty pleas on Oct. 9, 2008; bond increased to $100,000; posted $100,000 surety bond via HLS Bonding, International Fidelity Insurance Company and filed extradition waiver.
Failed to appear at a change-of-plea hearing on Feb. 2, 2010; case placed on inactive status, bond forfeited, and warrant issued; apprehended in January 2012 in California and extradited to Ohio; bond company agreed to remit the $100,000 bond.
Plea negotiations on Feb. 15, 2013: pled guilty to Counts One and Four; Counts Two, Three, and Five dismissed; court accepted pleas and found him guilty on Counts One and Four.
Nov. 7, 2013 sentencing: 30 months on Count One, 17 months on Count Four, to be served consecutively; 609 days credit; restitution and court costs set at $136,626.09 (later clarified as $140,763.14).
Dec. 6, 2013 notice of appeal raising four assignments of error; appeal timely and contested items include merger, restitution, ineffective assistance, and consecutive-sentence issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether aggravated theft and bad-check offenses are allied offenses of similar import and must merge.	Shanklin contends Counts One and Four merge due to continuing-conduct theory.	State/Defendant contends offenses were charged separately with distinct animus.	No merger; offenses were committed separately with different animus; not allied offenses.
Whether the trial court erred by not holding a separate restitution-hearing to determine exact amount.	Shanklin argues a hearing was required to fix restitution precisely.	Restitution amount, based on statutorily permissible information, does not require a separate hearing where no dispute exists.	Not plain error; restitution set at $136,626.09 based on evidence and victim statement; no dispute warranted a hearing.
Whether appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise merger and restitution issues.	Counsel failed to argue merger and failed to object to restitution.	Merger not merited; restitution commanded by statute; indictment-review claim inadequately argued.	No ineffective assistance; merger lacking, restitution properly imposed, indictment-claims inadequately supported.
Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).	Court failed to make required statutory findings before imposing consecutive terms.	Findings were made on the record and incorporated; no plain error.	Consecutive sentences proper; requisite findings were made and incorporated.

State v. Stall, 2011-Ohio-5733 (Ohio 3d Dist. (Crawford) 2011) (allied-offense analysis under 2941.25( B ) guidance cited)
State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-6314 (Ohio St. 3d 2010) (framework for determining whether two offenses can be committed by the same conduct)
State v. Brown, 2008-Ohio-4569 (Ohio St. 3d 2008) (definition of same conduct and animus in allied-offense analysis)
State v. Hadding, 2013-Ohio-643 (Ohio 3d Dist. 2013) (animus as immediate motive in allied offenses)
State v. Rogers, 2012-Ohio-4451 (Ohio 2d Dist. 2012) (conclusion that theft-by-deception and bad checks can share conduct)
State v. Snyder, 2011-Ohio-6346 (Ohio 12th Dist. 2011) (continuing-conduct theory distinguished; inapplicable to facts)
State v. Ballard, 2013-Ohio-373 (Ohio 8th Dist. 2013) (merger not required when offenses have separate animus)
State v. Sludder, 2012-Ohio-4014 (Ohio 3d Dist. 2012) (separate-offense analysis supporting non-merger)