State v. Bailey, 2016 Ohio 2957

Kevin L. Bailey pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking heroin as part of a plea deal: an aggregate, non-mandatory prison term of 4½ years and $800 restitution; remaining charges were dismissed.
The trial court’s sentencing entry contained alternative, stricken language regarding intensive program prison (IPP) and transitional control, ultimately indicating IPP and transitional control were "not approved," but without stating reasons.
Bailey’s eligibility for IPP was not contested on appeal.
Bailey appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) disapproving IPP without making the statutorily required finding explaining the disapproval, and (2) prematurely disapproving transfer to transitional control.
The appellate court reviewed prior precedent from this district holding that a court must make a finding that gives its reasons when approving or disapproving IPP, and that prematurely disapproving transitional control in the judgment entry is error that can be remedied by amendment or remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by disapproving placement in IPP without stating reasons required by R.C. 2929.19(D)	The State treated the entry as final and implied the disapproval valid	Bailey: trial court failed to make the statutorily required finding giving reasons for disapproving IPP	Reversed: trial court erred; must make a finding stating reasons for IPP disapproval
Whether the trial court erred by prematurely disapproving transitional control in the sentencing entry	The State relied on the sentencing entry language as dispositive	Bailey: disapproval was premature because transfer eligibility occurs late in term and cannot be foreclosed at sentencing	Reversed: premature disapproval is error; judgment remanded to delete/resolve disapproval of transitional control

State v. Howard, 944 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (trial court must state reasons when recommending or disapproving IPP)