State v. Andreoli, 2016 Ohio 7167

In 2014 Michael V. Andreoli pleaded guilty to one count of possession of cocaine and one count of possession of heroin; the trial court imposed five years of community control and specified that a violation could result in a 12‑month prison term on each count to run consecutively.
The trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) after accepting the guilty pleas.
In 2015 Andreoli’s probation officer alleged violations: unsuccessful discharge from a treatment program and an admission of heroin use; Andreoli admitted the violations at the violation hearing.
At the community control revocation hearing the court referenced the PSI; the PSI was not included in the appellate record.
The trial court imposed the reserved prison terms: 12 months on each count, to run consecutively (total two years). Andreoli appealed, arguing the sentence was an abuse of discretion given mitigating facts (one relapse after months of compliance and treatment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Andreoli)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing maximum consecutive prison terms after a community control violation	The State defended the revocation and sentence as within the court’s discretion and authorized by R.C. 2929.15(B)	Andreoli argued the court should have continued community control or imposed a lesser sanction given mitigating circumstances (single relapse, prior compliance, treatment efforts)	The court affirmed: sentence upheld because the appellate record lacked the PSI needed to review sentencing; court presumes regularity and cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (clarifies appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2): appellate court may vacate/modify a sentence only if clear and convincing evidence shows the record does not support the trial court’s findings or the sentence is contrary to law)