State v. Taylor, 2012 Ohio 99

Taylor pled guilty to burglary and robbery with three-year firearm specifications; the plea included an agreement that firearm specs would merge for sentencing.
This court previously affirmed the judgment in State v. Taylor, 2011-Ohio-2150, under the same case caption.
Taylor filed a timely application for reopening under App.R. 26(B)(5) asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising a merged-offenses issue.
The court held Taylor failed to show a genuine issue that he was deprived of effective assistance, applying the two-prong Strickland test as articulated in Reed and Spivey.
Taylor argued the burglary and robbery convictions should merge as allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25.
The court rejected this argument, noting Taylor pleaded to amended counts and that the underlying facts did not support a merger; the lapse in authority cited by Taylor was fatal to the claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taylor proves ineffective assistance on appeal.	Taylor (Taylor) claims counsel failed to raise allied-offenses issue.	Taylor cannot show deficient performance or reasonable probability of success absent controlling authority.	Denied; no genuine issue of ineffective assistance.
Whether burglary and robbery convictions should merge as allied offenses.	Taylor asserts allied-offenses merger for burglary and robbery.	Counts are not allied offenses; plea and sentencing structure preclude merger.	Denied; no reasonable probability of success on appeal.

State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (two-prong Strickland standard for App.R. 26(B)(5))
State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (1996) (two-prong Strickland analysis for reopening)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance framework)
State v. Smith, 2011-Ohio-3051 (2011) (convictions not allied offenses where burglary completes upon entry)