State v. Allender, 2012 Ohio 2963

Defendant-appellant Allender pled guilty to two felonies after a prior reindictment; the State nolleled the B indictment and elected the charge for sentencing.
The trial court sentenced Allender to three years and disapproved her placement in shock incarceration or an intensive program prison (IPP) under RC 2929.19(D).
The court stated eligibility for IPP/shock incarceration but disapproved based on purposes, seriousness, and recidivism factors; the judgment entry echoed disapproval.
Allender appealed alleging the court failed to state specific, particularized reasons for disapproval as required by RC 2929.19(D).
The appellate court sustained Allender’s assignment, reversed the disapproval, affirmed other aspects, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Dissent argued the trial court’s findings were sufficient under RC 2929.19(D) and that the court had broad discretion in sentencing contexts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err by failing to state reasons for disapproval of IPP or shock incarceration?	Allender argues the court did not provide specific reasons.	State contends any record-based reasons suffice or that substantial compliance existed.	Yes; disapproval reversed for lack of explicit reasons.

State v. Howard, 190 Ohio App.3d 734 (2d Dist. 2010) (disapproval must be accompanied by explicit findings under RC 2929.19(D))
State v. Jackson, 2006-Ohio-3994 (5th Dist. Knox) (improper to rely on implied reasons; needs explicit findings)
State v. Lowery, 2007-Ohio-6734 (11th Dist. Trumbull) (judgment entry must reflect disapproval; implied reasons insufficient)
State v. Tucker, 2012-Ohio-50 (12th Dist. Butler) (cites other districts’ views on sufficiency of reasons for disapproval)