State v. Suder, 2021 Ohio 465

Defendant Joseph L. Suder pled guilty to 10 counts arising from sexual abuse and photography of three minors: one count of trafficking in persons, two counts of rape, three counts of gross sexual imposition, and four counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material.
The state's factual recitation: Suder lured/harbored minors (B.D., E.D., V.S.), engaged in sexual acts with them, photographed them nude and in sexual acts, and distributed some images.
Suder admitted the facts at plea and later moved to merge the trafficking count with the illegal-use counts as allied offenses of similar import.
Suder also filed a pre-sentencing constitutional challenge to the Reagan Tokes Act (indefinite sentencing scheme), arguing due-process and separation-of-powers violations.
The trial court denied merger, overruled the constitutional challenge, and imposed an aggregate indefinite sentence (minimum 74 years, maximum 86 years).
On appeal the Twelfth District affirmed, rejecting both the allied-offense argument and the constitutional challenge to Reagan Tokes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trafficking in persons (R.C. 2905.32(A)(1)) and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material (R.C. 2907.323(A)(1)) are allied offenses requiring merger	Trafficking was complete when Suder knowingly recruited/harbored minors expecting they would be compelled to perform; the photography occurred after and thus is separate conduct producing separate harm and animus	The luring and the photographing were part of the same conduct/motive (to obtain nude photos); no separate identifiable harm — offenses should merge	Not allied; trafficking completed before the photography, so separate offenses and convictions allowed
Whether the Reagan Tokes Act's indefinite sentencing violates due process or separation of powers	Statute is constitutional; sentencing remains judicially imposed and the statute fits within precedent allowing limited executive-postimposition adjustments	Indefinite sentence scheme violates offender's due-process rights and the separation-of-powers doctrine	Statute constitutional; Twelfth Dist. follows controlling Ohio Supreme Court precedent and appellate authority rejecting those constitutional challenges

State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (articulating allied-offenses test and standards for separate convictions)
Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (2006) (court may delegate certain sanctioning roles consistent with separation-of-powers principles)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (postrelease-control and judicial sentencing framework)
Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 (2000) (upholding post-sentencing supervisory schemes against separation-of-powers challenge)