State v. Smith, 2014 Ohio 1398

Smith was convicted after pleading guilty to attempted forcible rape, kidnapping, and felonious assault in Mahoning County; he received consecutive prison terms totaling 10 years.
The victim, Jucinta Roland, testified in detail about the attack, including six hours of captivity.
The court imposed two years for attempted rape, six for kidnapping, and two for felonious assault, all consecutive.
Appellant argues the three offenses are allied offenses of similar import and should have merged at sentencing.
The defendant challenges the consecutive-sentencing findings required by the then-applicable statute, arguing the court failed to make the mandated findings.
The court remanded for resentencing to address proper findings under the revised statutory framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the offenses were allied offenses and should merge	Smith argues charges are allied offenses; rape implies kidnapping.	Smith contends same conduct/spirit ties the crimes; merger warranted.	No merger; separate animus and conduct supported separate punishment.
Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed	State argues proper findings under revised statute were not required because of timing.	Smith asserts court failed to make required HB86 findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).	Findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were not made; remand for resentencing.

State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (Ohio 1999) (two-step allied-offense analysis (original abstraction eliminated; now based on elements and conduct))
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (overruled abstract element-based approach in Rance; considers conduct and elements together)
State v. Blankenship, 38 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1988) (relevant to understanding allied offenses and separate animus)
State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2008) (clarified separate animus in allied offenses analysis)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two-step Kalish framework for reviewing felony sentences)