State v. Slamka, 2019 Ohio 3317

Appellant Keith Slamka pleaded guilty to two fifth-degree felony theft counts for stealing a credit card from the victim (M.C.) and later withdrawing cash/using the card to make purchases. Two other charges were dismissed as part of a plea deal.
A presentence investigation (PSI) was ordered; sentencing was set for Oct. 18, 2018. The trial court initially announced consecutive 9‑month terms (aggregate 18 months) after hearing mitigation.
After appellant made disrespectful comments as he exited the courtroom, the judge reconsidered and increased each count to consecutive 12‑month terms (aggregate 24 months). Defense objected to maximum, consecutive sentences; appellate counsel preserved an objection to the maximum/consecutive sentences.
The court relied on the PSI (lengthy criminal history including prior prison term, multiple OVIs, petty thefts), the victim relationship (victim had provided housing/assistance), and appellant’s apparent lack of genuine remorse in imposing prison and consecutive terms.
On appeal, Slamka argued (1) the court imposed a harsher/maximized sentence without adequate support and (2) the two theft convictions should have merged as allied offenses of similar import; he did not raise merger at sentencing.
The Twelfth District affirmed, finding the sentences supported by statute and the record, and that the two thefts were not allied because they involved separate completed acts (stealing the card, then using it later).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Slamka)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by increasing the sentence after initially announcing a lesser aggregate term	Court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, appellant’s prior prison term, criminal history, victim relationship, and lack of remorse; sentence within statutory range	Increase to consecutive 12‑month terms (from announced 9 months each) was unsupported and defeated sentencing principles	Affirmed: record supports sentencing findings; not contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)
Whether the two theft convictions were allied offenses that should have merged	Offenses were separate in conduct and timing (taking the card vs. later using it), so multiple punishments are permitted	The thefts arose from the same scheme and should merge as allied offenses	Affirmed: offenses not allied—one was completed before the other, so no merger; plain‑error review fails

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make and memorialize R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive‑sentence findings)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (three‑part allied‑offsense test: conduct, animus, import)
State v. Rehab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152 (2017) (genuine remorse as a sentencing consideration)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (2015) (forfeiture of allied‑offense argument if not raised at trial except for plain error)
State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221 (2016) (appellate power to modify/vacate sentence only where record lacks statutory support or sentence is contrary to law)
State v. Brown, 186 Ohio App.3d 437 (2010) (Ohio multiple‑count statute bars multiple punishments for same conduct)