State v. Terrel, 2015 Ohio 4201

In 2013 Brenden (Brendon) Terrel, then 19, participated as a lookout in a planned robbery of a drug dealer; two co-defendants entered the victim's home, during which the victim was shot and later died.
Terrel left before the co-defendants gained entry; he cooperated with police and testified against one co-defendant under a plea agreement.
He pleaded no contest to Complicity to Commit Aggravated Robbery and Complicity to Commit Aggravated Burglary (both first-degree felonies) with a mandatory three-year firearm specification.
At sentencing the court imposed the maximum term of 11 years on each felony count, ordered those two terms to run concurrently, and ordered the 3-year firearm specification to run consecutively. The judgment entry did not order a specific restitution amount.
Terrel appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) trial court erred by imposing maximum sentences, (2) trial court failed to merge allied offenses (aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery), and (3) trial court improperly ordered restitution without a specific figure or hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the maximum 11-year sentence on each felony contrary to law or unsupported by the record?	State: Sentence within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors and victim impact.	Terrel: Mitigating factors (youth, limited role, cooperation) warranted less than maximum; inconsistency with other cases.	Affirmed — sentence within statutory range; court considered required factors; not contrary to law or clearly unsupported.
Should convictions for Aggravated Burglary and Aggravated Robbery merge as allied offenses?	State: Offenses can be distinct (entry separate from robbery inside); different conduct can support both.	Terrel: He had a single animus (lookout) and the offenses arose from same conduct, so they should merge.	Affirmed — defendant failed to prove plain error; record insufficient to show both offenses arose from identical conduct/animus.
Did the trial court order restitution without specifying amount or holding a hearing?	State: No restitution was actually ordered; boilerplate language in entry is contingent.	Terrel: Entry’s language obligates him to pay restitution; lack of specific figure or hearing was error.	Affirmed — no restitution was ordered on record; therefore no error.

State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482, 2012-Ohio-5699, 983 N.E.2d 1245 (sets de novo review standard for merger questions)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (plain-error framework described)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061 (two-step test for allied offenses of similar import)
State v. Rodeffer, 5 N.E.3d 1069 (2013-Ohio-5759) (appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for reviewing felony sentences)