Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
161 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1980–2026 51 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Logangreen2 sentences2025“At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” Id. at ¶ 26. “[A] defendant’s conduct that constitutes two or more offenses against a single victim can support multiple convictions if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable from the harm of the other offense.” Id. {¶44} The term “animus” means “purpose or, more properly, immediate motive.” State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 (1979), abrogation recognized in Ruff. 2025“At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” Id. at ¶ 26. “[A] defendant’s conduct that constitutes two or more offenses against a -9- Case No. 1-24-76 single victim can support multiple convictions if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable from the harm of the other offense.” Id. {¶20} The term “animus” means “purpose or, more properly, immediate motive.” State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 (1979), abrogation recognized in Ruff. | 10 | 17 |
State v. Ruffgreen2 sentences2024“At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct” and “an offense may be committed in a variety of ways.” Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 , 2015-Ohio-995 , 34 N.E.3d 892, at ¶ 26, 30 . “‘[T]his analysis may be sometimes difficult to perform and may result in varying results for the same set of offenses in different cases. 2024“At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct” and “an offense may be committed in a variety of ways.” Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 , 2015-Ohio-995 , 34 N.E.3d 892, at ¶ 26, 30 . “‘[T]his analysis may be sometimes difficult to perform and may result in varying results for the same set of offenses in different cases. | 5 | 33 |
State v. Dean (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2024State v. Ford, 2011-Ohio-765 , paragraph one of the syllabus (“[A] firearm specification is a penalty enhancement, not a criminal offense.”); State v. Gray, 2022-Ohio-2940, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.) Thus, “courts cannot apply the allied-offense analysis to specifications because the sentence imposed for a specification is a sentencing enhancement.” State v. Ladson, 2017-Ohio-7715, ¶ 35 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Dean, 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 219 (R.C. 2941.25 and the attendant allied-offense analysis do not apply to sentencing enhancements such as firearm specifications). 2016The court went on to indicate that “the allied-offense analysis is 12. dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct. * * * When a defendant’s conduct victimizes more than one person, the harm for each person is separate and distinct, and therefore, the defendant can be convicted of multiple counts.” {¶ 29} Here, appellant argues the offenses should merge “[b]ecause appellant’s possession of the firearm was one continuous act, from the unknown date of acquisition until his arrest.” A similar argument was recently rejected in State v. Dean, 146 Ohio | 3 | 4 |
State v. Fraziergreen2 sentences2026“Offenses do not merge and a defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses if any of the following are true: ‘(1) the conduct constitutes offenses of dissimilar import; (2) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed separately; or (3) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed with separate animus.’” Id., quoting Ruff at paragraph three of the syllabus and ¶ 25. “[T]wo or more offenses of dissimilar import exist within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25(B) when the defendant’s conduct constitutes offenses involving separate victims or if the harm that results from eac 2025“Offenses do not merge and a defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses if any of the following are true: ‘(1) the conduct constitutes offenses of dissimilar import; (2) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed separately; or (3) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed with separate animus.’ ” Id., citing Ruff at paragraph three of the syllabus and ¶ 25; see also State v. Henry, 2018-Ohio-1128, ¶ 75 (10th Dist.), quoting Ruff at ¶ 25 ; State v. Dean, 2018-Ohio-1317, ¶ 60 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615 , ¶ 12, -5- quoting State v. Ruf | 3 | 3 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2024Instead, the allied offense analysis must derive from the evidence 13. introduced at trial, the record, and the legal arguments actually raised. [State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-6314 ,] at ¶ 56; ¶ 69-70 (O’Connor, J., concurring). 2022Contrary to the reasoning of the court of appeals, Leyh did not have to prove that he would win the reopened direct appeal and prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as a precondition to reopening the direct appeal for further legal proceedings to contest the trial court’s alleged failure to merge allied offenses. {¶ 36} The fact that the trial court’s journal entry recited that the court performed without objection by any party an allied-offense analysis pursuant to Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 , before deciding not to merge Leyh’ | 2 | 37 |
State v. Hessgreen2 sentences2026“At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” Ruff at ¶ 26 . {¶ 19} “In determining whether offenses are allied and should be merged for sentencing, courts are instructed to consider three distinct factors: the conduct, the animus, and the import.” State v. Hess, 2023-Ohio-3658, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing Ruff at paragraph one of the syllabus. 2025“At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” State v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995 , ¶ 26. {¶ 8} “In determining whether offenses are allied and should be merged for sentencing, courts are instructed to consider three distinct factors: the conduct, the animus, and the import.” State v. Hess, 2023-Ohio-3658, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing Ruff at paragraph one of the syllabus. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Rameygreen2 sentences2025The evidence at trial * * * will reveal whether the offenses have similar import.” Ruff at ¶ 26 . “[A] defendant’s conduct that constitutes two or more offenses against a single victim can support multiple [adjudications] if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable from the harm of the other offense.” Id. {¶28} “The term ‘animus’ means ‘“purpose or, more properly, immediate motive.”’” State v. Ramey, 2015-Ohio-5389, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Grissom, 2014-Ohio-857, ¶ 40 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 (1979). “‘Where an individual’ 2024Hamilton No. C-140129, 2015-Ohio-2997, ¶ 86 , quoting State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 , 397 N.E.2d 1345 (1979). “ ‘Where an individual’s immediate motive involves the commission of one offense, but in the course of committing that crime he must, A priori, commit another, then he may well possess but a single animus, and in that event may be convicted of only one crime.’ ” State v. Ramey, 2015-Ohio-5389 , 55 -21- N.E.3d 542, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), quoting Logan at 131 . {¶ 48} “At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the d | 2 | 3 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2012In both Bruce and the present case, the Ohio Supreme Court later declined leave to appeal. {¶12} Therefore, appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled. {¶13} Appellant’s second assignment of error states: “Defendant was denied due process of law when the court sentenced the defendant believing it had no discretion to modify the sentence.” {¶14} In State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , the Ohio Supreme Court explained that a trial court is required to hold a new sentencing hearing when an appellate court remands a case for resentencing based on an allie 2012In both Bruce and the present case, the Ohio Supreme Court later declined leave to appeal. {¶12} Therefore, appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled. {¶13} Appellant’s second assignment of error states: “Defendant was denied due process of law when the court sentenced the defendant believing it had no discretion to modify the sentence.” {¶14} In State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , the Ohio Supreme Court explained that a trial court is required to hold a new sentencing hearing when an appellate court remands a case for resentencing based on an allie | 2 | 3 |
State v. Ladsongreen2 sentences2025“In Ohio, the primary legislative statement on the multiplicity issue is found in R.C. 2941.25, concerning allied offenses of similar import.” Childs at 561 . . . . “[C]ourts cannot apply the allied-offense analysis to specifications because the sentence imposed for a specification is a sentencing enhancement.” State v. Ladson, 2017-Ohio-7715, ¶ 35 (8th Dist.) . . . . 2024State v. Ford, 2011-Ohio-765 , paragraph one of the syllabus (“[A] firearm specification is a penalty enhancement, not a criminal offense.”); State v. Gray, 2022-Ohio-2940, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.) Thus, “courts cannot apply the allied-offense analysis to specifications because the sentence imposed for a specification is a sentencing enhancement.” State v. Ladson, 2017-Ohio-7715, ¶ 35 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Dean, 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 219 (R.C. 2941.25 and the attendant allied-offense analysis do not apply to sentencing enhancements such as firearm specifications). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Henrygreen2 sentences2025“A defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses when: ‘(1) the offenses are dissimilar in import or significance—in other words, each offense caused separate, identifiable harm, (2) the offenses were committed separately, and (3) the offenses were committed with separate animus or motivation.’ ” State v. Henry, 2018-Ohio-1128, ¶ 75 (10th Dist.), quoting Ruff at ¶ 25 ; see, also, State v. Dean, 2018-Ohio-1317, ¶ 60 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615 , ¶ 12, quoting Ruff at ¶ 31 . “[T]wo or more offenses of dissimilar import exist within the meaning of R.C. 2941 2025“Offenses do not merge and a defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses if any of the following are true: ‘(1) the conduct constitutes offenses of dissimilar import; (2) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed separately; or (3) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed with separate animus.’ ” Id., citing Ruff at paragraph three of the syllabus and ¶ 25; see also State v. Henry, 2018-Ohio-1128, ¶ 75 (10th Dist.), quoting Ruff at ¶ 25 ; State v. Dean, 2018-Ohio-1317, ¶ 60 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615 , ¶ 12, -5- quoting State v. Ruf | 2 | 2 |
State v. Deangreen2 sentences2025“A defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses when: ‘(1) the offenses are dissimilar in import or significance—in other words, each offense caused separate, identifiable harm, (2) the offenses were committed separately, and (3) the offenses were committed with separate animus or motivation.’ ” State v. Henry, 2018-Ohio-1128, ¶ 75 (10th Dist.), quoting Ruff at ¶ 25 ; see, also, State v. Dean, 2018-Ohio-1317, ¶ 60 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615 , ¶ 12, quoting Ruff at ¶ 31 . “[T]wo or more offenses of dissimilar import exist within the meaning of R.C. 2941 2025“Offenses do not merge and a defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses if any of the following are true: ‘(1) the conduct constitutes offenses of dissimilar import; (2) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed separately; or (3) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed with separate animus.’ ” Id., citing Ruff at paragraph three of the syllabus and ¶ 25; see also State v. Henry, 2018-Ohio-1128, ¶ 75 (10th Dist.), quoting Ruff at ¶ 25 ; State v. Dean, 2018-Ohio-1317, ¶ 60 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615 , ¶ 12, -5- quoting State v. Ruf | 2 | 2 |
State v. Alberstongreen2 sentences2025“A defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses when: ‘(1) the offenses are dissimilar in import or significance—in other words, each offense caused separate, identifiable harm, (2) the offenses were committed separately, and (3) the offenses were committed with separate animus or motivation.’ ” State v. Henry, 2018-Ohio-1128, ¶ 75 (10th Dist.), quoting Ruff at ¶ 25 ; see, also, State v. Dean, 2018-Ohio-1317, ¶ 60 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615 , ¶ 12, quoting Ruff at ¶ 31 . “[T]wo or more offenses of dissimilar import exist within the meaning of R.C. 2941 2025“Offenses do not merge and a defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses if any of the following are true: ‘(1) the conduct constitutes offenses of dissimilar import; (2) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed separately; or (3) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed with separate animus.’ ” Id., citing Ruff at paragraph three of the syllabus and ¶ 25; see also State v. Henry, 2018-Ohio-1128, ¶ 75 (10th Dist.), quoting Ruff at ¶ 25 ; State v. Dean, 2018-Ohio-1317, ¶ 60 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615 , ¶ 12, -5- quoting State v. Ruf | 2 | 2 |
State v. Grissomgreen2 sentences2025The evidence at trial * * * will reveal whether the offenses have similar import.” Ruff at ¶ 26 . “[A] defendant’s conduct that constitutes two or more offenses against a single victim can support multiple [adjudications] if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable from the harm of the other offense.” Id. {¶28} “The term ‘animus’ means ‘“purpose or, more properly, immediate motive.”’” State v. Ramey, 2015-Ohio-5389, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Grissom, 2014-Ohio-857, ¶ 40 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 (1979). “‘Where an individual’ 2024The evidence at trial . . . will reveal whether the offenses have similar import.” Ruff at ¶ 26 . “[A] defendant’s conduct that constitutes two or more offenses against a single victim can support multiple convictions if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable from the harm of the other offense.” Id. {¶38} “The term ‘animus’ means ‘“purpose or, more properly, immediate motive.”’” State v. Ramey, 2015-Ohio-5389, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Grissom, 2014-Ohio-857, ¶ 40 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 (1979). “‘Where an individual’s im | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Nicholasgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Underwoodgreen2 sentences2014We remand this matter to the trial court for it to conduct an allied offense analysis in the first instance. {¶7} “R.C. 2941.25 codifies the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 23 . 2014We remand this matter to the trial court for it to conduct an allied offense analysis in the first instance. {¶7} “R.C. 2941.25 codifies the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 23 . | 1 | 10 |
State v. Earley (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615 , ¶12, quoting Ruff, ¶ 31. {¶13} Further, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant's conduct and an offense may be committed in a variety of ways. 2025State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615 , ¶12, quoting Ruff, ¶ 31. {¶13} Further, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant's conduct and an offense may be committed in a variety of ways. | 1 | 9 |
State v. Baileygreen2 sentences2024Champaign No. 2022-CA-24, 2023-Ohio-3658, ¶ 11 , citing Bailey. {¶ 25} In Bailey, 171 Ohio St.3d 486 , 2022-Ohio-4407 , 218 N.E.3d 858 , the Supreme Court of Ohio explained that “the law governing the merger of allied offenses is dependent on the specific facts of each case[,]” and that the allied offense analysis “can lead to exceedingly fine distinctions” since it “turns on an analysis of the facts[.]” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 16 and ¶ 11. 2024Champaign No. 2022-CA-24, 2023-Ohio-3658, ¶ 11 , citing Bailey. {¶ 25} In Bailey, 171 Ohio St.3d 486 , 2022-Ohio-4407 , 218 N.E.3d 858 , the Supreme Court of Ohio explained that “the law governing the merger of allied offenses is dependent on the specific facts of each case[,]” and that the allied offense analysis “can lead to exceedingly fine distinctions” since it “turns on an analysis of the facts[.]” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 16 and ¶ 11. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2022In State v. Rogers, 2013-Ohio-3235 , 994 N.E.2d 499 (8th Dist.), this court, en banc, held that the trial court has a duty to conduct an allied offense analysis when multiple charges facially present a question of merger under R.C. 2941.25. 2016The trial court committed reversible error and imposed a sentence contrary to law when the record reveals the court failed to consider all mandatory sentencing factors required by R.C. 2929.13. {¶6} This court determined that under its previous decision in State v. Rogers, 2013-Ohio-3235 , 994 N.E.2d 499 (8th Dist.), the trial court had a mandatory duty to conduct an allied offense analysis when multiple charges facially present a question of merger under R.C. 2941.25. | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Rossgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tangogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lawrencegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Scottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Graygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Whipplegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Glenngreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Faingreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Leegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Teaquegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Connorsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dominguezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mirandagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Waregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2025“At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 -14- focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” State v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995 , ¶ 26. {¶ 33} R.C. 2941.25 “protects a defendant from receiving multiple punishments for ‘a single criminal act.’ ” State v. Malone, 2016-Ohio-3543 , ¶ 14 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Washington, 2013-Ohio-4982, ¶ 18 ; State v. Williams, 2012-Ohio-5699, ¶ 13 . 2021An appellate court applies “a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s R.C. 2941.25 merger determination.” State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699 , 983 N.E.2d 1245, ¶ 28 . {¶ 96} “At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 , 2015-Ohio-995 , 34 N.E.3d 892, ¶ 26 . “ ‘[W]hen determining whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25, courts must ask three questions * * *: (1) Were the offenses dis | 8 | 2013–2025 |
State v. Comen
green
2 sentences1994In State v. Comen (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 206 , 553 N.E.2d 640 , the Ohio Supreme Court determined that the defendant’s failure to object to the convictions or sentencing at trial resulted in a waiver of an allied offense claim on appeal. 1994In State v. Comen (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 206 , 553 N.E.2d 640 , the Ohio Supreme Court determined that the defendant’s failure to object to the convictions or sentencing at trial resulted in a waiver of an allied offense claim on appeal. | 7 | 1994–2020 |
State v. Washington
green
2 sentences2025“At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 -14- focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” State v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995 , ¶ 26. {¶ 33} R.C. 2941.25 “protects a defendant from receiving multiple punishments for ‘a single criminal act.’ ” State v. Malone, 2016-Ohio-3543 , ¶ 14 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Washington, 2013-Ohio-4982, ¶ 18 ; State v. Williams, 2012-Ohio-5699, ¶ 13 . 2022Therefore, “when one offense is completed prior to the completion of another offense during the defendant’s course of conduct, those offenses are separate acts.” State v. Mooty, 2014-Ohio-733 , 9 N.E.3d 443 , ¶ 49 (2d Dist.). {¶ 39} “At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” Ruff at ¶ 26. “ ‘[T]he defendant bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to the protection, provided by R.C. 2941.25, against multiple punishments for a single criminal act.’ ” State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427 , | 5 | 2013–2025 |
State v. Cooper
green
2 sentences2007The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained that "a court need only engage in the allied-offense analysis when the same conduct, or single act, results in multiple convictions." State v. Cooper , 104 Ohio St.3d 293 , 296 , 2004- Ohio-6553, at ¶ 17. 2007"If the elements do not so correspond, the offenses are of dissimilar import and the court's inquiry ends — the multiple convictions are permitted." Ranee , 85 Ohio St.3d at 636 , citing R.C. 2941.25 (B). *Page 5 However, "a court need only engage in the allied-offense analysis when the same conduct, or single act, results in multiple convictions." State v. Cooper , 104 Ohio St.3d 293 , 296 , 2004-Ohio-6553 . {¶ 11} Here, Chamberlin argues that, based upon Cooper , because his multiple convictions arose from the same conduct with a single animus, rather than two separate acts or animuses, R.C. | 5 | 2005–2007 |
Collins v. St. Elizabeth Hospital
green
2 sentences2022Therefore, “when one offense is completed prior to the completion of another offense during the defendant’s course of conduct, those offenses are separate acts.” State v. Mooty, 2014-Ohio-733 , 9 N.E.3d 443 , ¶ 49 (2d Dist.). {¶ 39} “At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” Ruff at ¶ 26. “ ‘[T]he defendant bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to the protection, provided by R.C. 2941.25, against multiple punishments for a single criminal act.’ ” State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2022Therefore, “when one offense is completed prior to the completion of another offense during the defendant’s course of conduct, those offenses are separate acts.” State v. Mooty, 2014-Ohio-733 , 9 N.E.3d 443 , ¶ 49 (2d Dist.). {¶ 39} “At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” Ruff at ¶ 26. “ ‘[T]he defendant bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to the protection, provided by R.C. 2941.25, against multiple punishments for a single criminal act.’ ” State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427 , | 4 | 2019–2022 |
State v. Washington
green
2 sentences2022Therefore, “when one offense is completed prior to the completion of another offense during the defendant’s course of conduct, those offenses are separate acts.” State v. Mooty, 2014-Ohio-733 , 9 N.E.3d 443 , ¶ 49 (2d Dist.). {¶ 39} “At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” Ruff at ¶ 26. “ ‘[T]he defendant bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to the protection, provided by R.C. 2941.25, against multiple punishments for a single criminal act.’ ” State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2022“To conclude otherwise would encourage those who break into buildings to steal to proceed with the theft since the offenses would merge for purposes of conviction and sentence.” Spurrier at ¶ 68. {¶ 36} “At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct.” Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 , 2015-Ohio-995 , 34 N.E.3d 892, at ¶ 26 . “ ‘[T]he defendant bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to the protection, provided by R.C. 2941.25, against multiple punishments for a single criminal act.’ ” State v. Washingto | 4 | 2019–2022 |
State v. Yarbrough
green
2 sentences2013State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 , ¶ 26, 31, citing State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2004-Ohio-6087 , 817 N.E.2d 845 ; R.C. 2953.08(A)(4). {¶54} Here, under the first prong of the Johnson inquiry, it is possible to commit felonious assault by means of a deadly weapon and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises. 2012State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 , ¶ 26, 31, citing State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2004-Ohio-6087 , 817 N.E.2d 845 ; R.C. 2953.08(A)(4). {¶54} Here, under the first prong of the Johnson inquiry, it is possible to commit felonious assault by means of a deadly weapon and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises. | 4 | 2006–2013 |
State v. Lewis
red
2 sentences2011State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 , ¶31. {¶ 24} In State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 , the Ohio Supreme Court returned the allied offense analysis to a comparison of the elements of multiple offenses in light of a defendant’s conduct, overruling State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 , 1999-Ohio-291 , 710 N.E.2d 699 . {¶ 25} “Under R.C. 2941.25, the court must determine prior to sentencing whether the offenses were committed by the same conduct.” Johnson at ¶47. {¶ 26} The court goes on to set forth the appropriate question a 2011State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 , ¶31. {¶ 24} In State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 , the Ohio Supreme Court returned the allied offense analysis to a comparison of the elements of multiple offenses in light of a defendant’s conduct, overruling State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 , 1999-Ohio-291 , 710 N.E.2d 699 . {¶ 25} “Under R.C. 2941.25, the court must determine prior to sentencing whether the offenses were committed by the same conduct.” Johnson at ¶47. {¶ 26} The court goes on to set forth the appropriate question a | 4 | 2006–2011 |
State v. Black
green
2 sentences2023No. 102586, Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0026 28 2016-Ohio-383 , 58 N.E.3d 561 , ¶27, discretionary appeal not allowed, State v. Black, 145 Ohio St.3d 1461 , 2016-Ohio-2807 , 49 N.E.3d 322 . {¶112} In State v. Victor, 11th Dist. 2017Id. at ¶ 26; State v. Black, 2016-Ohio-383 , 58 N.E.3d 561 , ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). {¶27} Here, Pendergrass pleaded guilty to Count 17, kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4), which provides that “[n]o person, by force, threat, or deception, * * *, by any means, shall remove another from the place where the other person is found or restrain the liberty of the other person, * * * [t]o engage in sexual activity * * * with the victim against the victim’s will.” Pendergrass did not object at sentencing to the court’s failure to conduct an allied offense analysis on the issue of whether the kidna | 3 | 2017–2023 |
State v. Winn
green
2 sentences2018(B) Where the defendant’s conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them. {¶10} Rhoads relies on the allied-offense test espoused in State v. Winn. 121 Ohio St.3d 413 , 2009-Ohio-1059 . 2018(B) Where the defendant’s conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them. {¶10} Rhoads relies on the allied-offense test espoused in State v. Winn. 121 Ohio St.3d 413 , 2009-Ohio-1059 . | 3 | 2009–2018 |
State v. Whitfield
green
2 sentences2015See State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669, ¶ 13-15 ; State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 , 2010-Ohio-2 , paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. 2015See State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669, ¶ 13-15 ; State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 , 2010-Ohio-2 , paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. | 3 | 2013–2015 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2005(B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them. {¶ 13} Pursuant to State v. Cooper (2004), 104 Ohio St.3d 293 , 296 , "a court need only engage in the allied-offense analysis when the same conduct, or single act, results in multiple convictions." This specific point was emphasized by the Ohio Su 2005(B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them. {¶ 13} Pursuant to State v. Cooper (2004), 104 Ohio St.3d 293 , 296 , "a court need only engage in the allied-offense analysis when the same conduct, or single act, results in multiple convictions." This specific point was emphasized by the Ohio Su | 3 | 2004–2006 |
State v. Artis
green
2 sentences2025The evidence at trial * * * will reveal whether the offenses have similar import.” Ruff at ¶ 26 . “[A] defendant’s conduct that constitutes two or more offenses against a single victim can support multiple [adjudications] if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable from the harm of the other offense.” Id. {¶28} “The term ‘animus’ means ‘“purpose or, more properly, immediate motive.”’” State v. Ramey, 2015-Ohio-5389, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Grissom, 2014-Ohio-857, ¶ 40 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 (1979). “‘Where an individual’ 2024The evidence at trial . . . will reveal whether the offenses have similar import.” Ruff at ¶ 26 . “[A] defendant’s conduct that constitutes two or more offenses against a single victim can support multiple convictions if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable from the harm of the other offense.” Id. {¶38} “The term ‘animus’ means ‘“purpose or, more properly, immediate motive.”’” State v. Ramey, 2015-Ohio-5389, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Grissom, 2014-Ohio-857, ¶ 40 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 (1979). “‘Where an individual’s im | 2 | 2024–2025 |
| State v. Rogers green | 2 | 2017–2018 |
| State v. Saxon green | 2 | 2012–2017 |
| State v. Brown green | 2 | 2011–2017 |
| State v. Perry green | 2 | 2012–2014 |
| State v. Rance green | 2 | 2009–2011 |
| State v. Boldin, 2007-G-2808 (12-5-2008) green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Jells green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Powell green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| City of Newark v. Vazirani green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Schoen green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Hill green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Kent green | 2 | 1980–2001 |
| State v. Long green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Ford green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Bailey green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Morris neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Conrad neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Mooty green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Chester neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Devore neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Woodard green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Brumley neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Morgan green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Moss green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Blankenship green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Perry green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Gonzales (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.