[Cite as State v. Gibler, 2025-Ohio-4689.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-25-005
Appellee Trial Court No. 24 CR 00101
v.
Kalie Ann Gibler DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 10, 2025
*****
Christopher Bazeley, attorney for appellant.
Katherine J. Zartman, Prosecuting Attorney and Joseph A. Urenovitch, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
***** MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Kalie Ann Gibler, appeals the February 10, 2025
judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas, convicting her of engaging in
a pattern of corrupt activity, counterfeiting, identity fraud, forgery, and theft, and sentencing her to an aggregate prison term of a minimum of five years and a maximum of
seven years. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment.
I. Background
{¶ 2} Kalie Ann Gibler was indicted on counts of (1) engaging in a pattern of
corrupt activity (“ECPA”), a violation of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) and (B)(1), a first-degree
felony (Count 1); counterfeiting, a violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(4) and (C)(1), a third-
degree felony (Count 2); counterfeiting, a violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(1) and (C), a
fourth-degree felony (Count 3); counterfeiting, a violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(2) and (C),
a fourth-degree felony (Count 4); counterfeiting, a violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(3) and
(C), a fourth-degree felony (Count 5); identity fraud, a violation of R.C. 2913.49(B)(1)
and (I)(2), a fifth-degree felony (Count 6); forgery, a violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(1) and
(C)(1)(b), a fifth-degree felony (Count 7); possessing criminal tools, a violation of R.C.
2923.24(A) and (C), a fifth-degree felony (Count 8); and theft, a violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(2), a fifth-degree felony (Count 9).
{¶ 3} Gibler entered a plea of guilty to amended Count 1, reduced to a second-
degree felony; amended Count 2, reduced to a fourth-degree felony; and Counts 6, 7, and
9. As to amended Count 1, the trial court imposed an indefinite prison term of four years
and a maximum prison term of six years. As to amended Count 2, it imposed a definite
prison term of 12 months. And as to Counts 6, 7, and 9, it imposed definite prison terms
of 11 months each. It ordered consecutive service of the prison terms imposed for
amended Counts 1 and 2, and concurrent service of the terms imposed for amended
2. Count 2 and Counts 6, 7, and 9. The aggregate prison term imposed was a minimum of
five years and a maximum of seven years. Gibler’s convictions and sentences are
memorialized in a judgment journalized on February 10, 2025.
{¶ 4} Gibler appealed. She assigns the following error for our review:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO MERGE GIBLER’S CONVICTIONS FOR FORGERY AND THEFT.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 5} In her sole assignment of error, Gibler argues that her convictions of forgery
(Count 7) and theft (Count 9) arose from a single, identifiable transaction, thus the trial
court erred by failing to merge those convictions. Gibler maintains that her forgery
conviction is premised on conduct described in Count 1, Incident Three of the ECPA
charge. According to Gibler, “Incident Three” alleges that on September 29, 2022, she
forged—then cashed—two payroll checks from Pioneer Custom Coating. She contends
that the theft charge also arises from the misuse of these payroll checks and identifies a
three-month window for the offense, ending on September 29, 2022. She insists that
these allegations in the indictment demonstrate that the forgery and theft convictions
arose from the same conduct, are of the same import, were committed with the same
animus, and involve the same victim.
{¶ 6} The State responds that the forgery and theft convictions are separate and
distinct and do not merge. It explains that the theft conviction stems from the physical
theft of payroll checks from Pioneer Custom Coating, while the forgery conviction stems
3. from Giblin’s forging of endorsements onto those payroll checks. It also asserts that the
conduct supporting the forgery charge was committed between June 24, 2022 and
January 10, 2023, and included additional acts of forgery unrelated to Pioneer Custom
Coating. The State submits that when Gibler pled guilty, she accepted as true that the
forgery was committed during a period after the theft offense. It contends that there were
multiple victims here: the employee whose signature was forged and had checks cashed
in his name and the business from which Gibler physically stole the checks. The State
insists that each suffered distinct and identifiable harm.
{¶ 7} Because she failed to raise this issue in the trial court, Gibler has forfeited all
but plain error. State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 3. “[A] forfeited error is not
reversible error unless it affected the outcome of the proceeding and reversal is necessary
to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. As such, “an accused has the burden to
demonstrate a reasonable probability that the convictions are for allied offenses of similar
import committed with the same conduct and without a separate animus; absent that
showing, the accused cannot demonstrate that the trial court’s failure to inquire whether
the convictions merge for purposes of sentencing was plain error.” Id.
{¶ 8} The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, applicable to the state through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no
person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
State v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995, ¶ 10. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against several
abuses. Id. Pertinent to this case is the protection against multiple punishments for the
4. same offense. Id. To that end, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2941.25, which
directs when multiple punishments may be imposed. Id. It prohibits multiple convictions
for allied offenses of similar import arising out of the same conduct:
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one.
(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.
{¶ 9} In Ruff, the Ohio Supreme Court examined in detail the analysis that must be
performed in determining whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import under
R.C. 2941.25. It identified three questions that must be asked: “(1) Were the offenses
dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they committed separately? and (3) Were
they committed with separate animus or motivation?” Id. at ¶ 31. If the answer to any of
these questions is “yes,” the defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple
offenses. Id. at ¶ 25, 30. The court explained that offenses are of dissimilar import
“when the defendant’s conduct constitutes offenses involving separate victims or if the
harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable.” Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Gibler, 2025-Ohio-4689.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-25-005
Appellee Trial Court No. 24 CR 00101
v.
Kalie Ann Gibler DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 10, 2025
*****
Christopher Bazeley, attorney for appellant.
Katherine J. Zartman, Prosecuting Attorney and Joseph A. Urenovitch, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
***** MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Kalie Ann Gibler, appeals the February 10, 2025
judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas, convicting her of engaging in
a pattern of corrupt activity, counterfeiting, identity fraud, forgery, and theft, and sentencing her to an aggregate prison term of a minimum of five years and a maximum of
seven years. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment.
I. Background
{¶ 2} Kalie Ann Gibler was indicted on counts of (1) engaging in a pattern of
corrupt activity (“ECPA”), a violation of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) and (B)(1), a first-degree
felony (Count 1); counterfeiting, a violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(4) and (C)(1), a third-
degree felony (Count 2); counterfeiting, a violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(1) and (C), a
fourth-degree felony (Count 3); counterfeiting, a violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(2) and (C),
a fourth-degree felony (Count 4); counterfeiting, a violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(3) and
(C), a fourth-degree felony (Count 5); identity fraud, a violation of R.C. 2913.49(B)(1)
and (I)(2), a fifth-degree felony (Count 6); forgery, a violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(1) and
(C)(1)(b), a fifth-degree felony (Count 7); possessing criminal tools, a violation of R.C.
2923.24(A) and (C), a fifth-degree felony (Count 8); and theft, a violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(2), a fifth-degree felony (Count 9).
{¶ 3} Gibler entered a plea of guilty to amended Count 1, reduced to a second-
degree felony; amended Count 2, reduced to a fourth-degree felony; and Counts 6, 7, and
9. As to amended Count 1, the trial court imposed an indefinite prison term of four years
and a maximum prison term of six years. As to amended Count 2, it imposed a definite
prison term of 12 months. And as to Counts 6, 7, and 9, it imposed definite prison terms
of 11 months each. It ordered consecutive service of the prison terms imposed for
amended Counts 1 and 2, and concurrent service of the terms imposed for amended
2. Count 2 and Counts 6, 7, and 9. The aggregate prison term imposed was a minimum of
five years and a maximum of seven years. Gibler’s convictions and sentences are
memorialized in a judgment journalized on February 10, 2025.
{¶ 4} Gibler appealed. She assigns the following error for our review:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO MERGE GIBLER’S CONVICTIONS FOR FORGERY AND THEFT.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 5} In her sole assignment of error, Gibler argues that her convictions of forgery
(Count 7) and theft (Count 9) arose from a single, identifiable transaction, thus the trial
court erred by failing to merge those convictions. Gibler maintains that her forgery
conviction is premised on conduct described in Count 1, Incident Three of the ECPA
charge. According to Gibler, “Incident Three” alleges that on September 29, 2022, she
forged—then cashed—two payroll checks from Pioneer Custom Coating. She contends
that the theft charge also arises from the misuse of these payroll checks and identifies a
three-month window for the offense, ending on September 29, 2022. She insists that
these allegations in the indictment demonstrate that the forgery and theft convictions
arose from the same conduct, are of the same import, were committed with the same
animus, and involve the same victim.
{¶ 6} The State responds that the forgery and theft convictions are separate and
distinct and do not merge. It explains that the theft conviction stems from the physical
theft of payroll checks from Pioneer Custom Coating, while the forgery conviction stems
3. from Giblin’s forging of endorsements onto those payroll checks. It also asserts that the
conduct supporting the forgery charge was committed between June 24, 2022 and
January 10, 2023, and included additional acts of forgery unrelated to Pioneer Custom
Coating. The State submits that when Gibler pled guilty, she accepted as true that the
forgery was committed during a period after the theft offense. It contends that there were
multiple victims here: the employee whose signature was forged and had checks cashed
in his name and the business from which Gibler physically stole the checks. The State
insists that each suffered distinct and identifiable harm.
{¶ 7} Because she failed to raise this issue in the trial court, Gibler has forfeited all
but plain error. State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 3. “[A] forfeited error is not
reversible error unless it affected the outcome of the proceeding and reversal is necessary
to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. As such, “an accused has the burden to
demonstrate a reasonable probability that the convictions are for allied offenses of similar
import committed with the same conduct and without a separate animus; absent that
showing, the accused cannot demonstrate that the trial court’s failure to inquire whether
the convictions merge for purposes of sentencing was plain error.” Id.
{¶ 8} The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, applicable to the state through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no
person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
State v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995, ¶ 10. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against several
abuses. Id. Pertinent to this case is the protection against multiple punishments for the
4. same offense. Id. To that end, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2941.25, which
directs when multiple punishments may be imposed. Id. It prohibits multiple convictions
for allied offenses of similar import arising out of the same conduct:
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one.
(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.
{¶ 9} In Ruff, the Ohio Supreme Court examined in detail the analysis that must be
performed in determining whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import under
R.C. 2941.25. It identified three questions that must be asked: “(1) Were the offenses
dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they committed separately? and (3) Were
they committed with separate animus or motivation?” Id. at ¶ 31. If the answer to any of
these questions is “yes,” the defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple
offenses. Id. at ¶ 25, 30. The court explained that offenses are of dissimilar import
“when the defendant’s conduct constitutes offenses involving separate victims or if the
harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable.” Id. at ¶ 23. It
emphasized that the analysis must focus on the defendant’s conduct, rather than simply
compare the elements of two offenses. Id. at ¶ 30.
5. {¶ 10} The defendant bears the burden of establishing that R.C. 2941.25 prohibits
multiple punishments. State v. Washington, 2013-Ohio-4982, ¶ 18, citing State v.
Mughni, 33 Ohio St.3d 65, 67 (1987). “Although determining whether R.C. 2941.25 has
been properly applied is a legal question, it necessarily turns on an analysis of the facts . .
. .” State v. Bailey, 2022- Ohio-4407, ¶ 11. This “can lead to exceedingly fine
distinctions.” Id. As such, an allied offenses analysis “may be sometimes difficult to
perform and may result in varying results for the same set of offenses in different cases.”
Ruff at ¶ 32.
{¶ 11} Here, Gibler was convicted after entering guilty pleas, making for a fairly
sparse record. The indictment and the presentence investigation report are the only
sources of factual information here. State v. Hall, 2018-Ohio-619, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.)
(“[T]he entire record—including the PSI and arguments and information presented at the
sentencing hearing—may be considered in determining whether to merge multiple
offenses at sentencing.”).
{¶ 12} Count 7 of the Indictment states as follows:
Kalie Ann Gibler on or about June 24, 2022 through January 10, 2023, . . . with purpose to defraud or knowing that she was facilitating a fraud, did forge a writing, to wit: checks, of another, without . . . the other person’s authority in violation of [R.C.] 2913.31(A)(1) [and] (C)(1)(b), Forgery, a felony of the fifth degree. . . .
{¶ 13} Count 9 states as follows:
Kalie Ann Gibler on or about June 24, 2022, through September 29, 2022, . . . did with purpose to deprive the owner, Pioneer Custom Coating, of property or services, to wit: payroll checks, knowingly obtain or exert
6. control over either the property or services without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent in violation of [R.C.] 2913.02(A)(1) [and] (B)(2), Theft, a felony of the fifth degree.
FURTHERMORE, the property stolen is property listed under [R.C.] 2913.71 . . . in that it is a printed form for a check or other negotiable instrument, that on its face identifies the drawer or maker for whose use it is designed or identifies the account on which it is to be drawn, and that has not been executed by the drawer or maker or on which the amount is blank, to wit: payroll checks. . . .
{¶ 14} According to the police report recited within the PSI, on September 27,
2022, it was discovered that six payroll checks payable to D.S. were stolen from a desk
drawer at Pioneer Custom Coating, and three of them—one dated June 24, 2022, one
dated August 5, 2022, and one dated September 9, 2022—were cashed. D.S.’s
endorsement was forged on those three checks and “pay to the order of” Kalie Gibler was
written on them.
{¶ 15} Where there are multiple victims, the offenses are of dissimilar import.
State v. Haddox, 2016-Ohio-3368, ¶ 18-20 (6th Dist.). Moreover, this court has
recognized that “[a]s to the offenses of theft by deception and forgery, . . . ‘a single
course of conduct may entail multiple criminal acts.’” Id. at ¶ 20; quoting State v.
Russell, 2015-Ohio-2802, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 2014-Ohio-5076, ¶ 26
(11th Dist.). This is well-illustrated in State v. Esner, 2017-Ohio-1365, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). In
Esner, the defendant stole blank checks and then forged three checks on those stolen
blank checks. The court observed that “[a]lthough the theft facilitated the forgery, and
thus could be considered a single course of conduct, the crimes were all based on separate
7. and distinct acts.” Similarly, in State v. Foggin, 2021-Ohio-830, ¶ 21 (5th Dist.), the
court concluded that the defendant’s theft and forgery convictions were not allied
offenses of similar import because “the crime of theft of the blank and unexecuted check
occurred at a separate time and location from the attempt to utter the forged check[.]”
{¶ 16} Here, in addition to there having been two separate and distinct acts—the
taking of the payroll checks out of the desk drawer then the endorsing and cashing of
those checks—there were additional factors preventing the convictions from merging.
There were multiple victims of the theft: D.S. and Pioneer Custom Coating (and
arguably, the bank that cashed the checks). There were multiple instances of theft: six
checks were stolen. And there were multiple instances of forgery: endorsements were
forged on three checks. As such, Gibler has failed to demonstrate a reasonable
probability that her convictions are for allied offenses of similar import. Accordingly, we
find no plain error in the trial court’s failure to merge Gibler’s forgery (Count 7) and theft
(Count 9) convictions.
{¶ 17} We find Gibler’s assignment of error not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
The trial court did not err by failing to merge Gibler’s convictions of theft of
paychecks from a desk drawer of a business and forgery of endorsements on those
checks. We find Gibler’s assignment of error not well-taken. We affirm the February 10,
8. 2025 judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas. Gibler is ordered to pay
the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J. CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
9.