State v. Cozzone, 114 N.E.3d 601

Background

Madison Cozzone, a former pharmacy technician, admitted stealing Oxycodone/APAP and Xanax from customer prescriptions; indicted on three counts of fourth-degree theft of drugs and one count of fifth-degree aggravated possession.
She entered and received intervention in lieu of conviction, which was later violated; community-control sanctions (including residential sanction and NEOCAP) were imposed and modified after additional violations and overdoses.
Multiple petitions alleged community-control violations (missed reporting, positive drug tests, two heroin overdoses); Cozzone admitted to violations and submitted mitigation materials.
At the October 6, 2017 violation hearing she admitted the violation; the court merged one count and sentenced her to consecutive 18‑month terms on three counts (total 54 months), with credit for time served.
The trial court stated reasons for consecutive sentences at hearing, but the written entry included an additional R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) finding not made on the record; the court invoked R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) (criminal history) at hearing and entry.
Cozzone appealed, arguing (1) sentence not supported/contrary to law, (2) consecutive maximum sentences unsupported, and (3) trial court failed to apply R.C. 2929.15 (limits on prison terms for technical community‑control violations).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 such that sentence was lawful	State: court considered record and rehabilitation efforts; prison appropriate given repeated noncompliance and public protection	Cozzone: court failed to consider statutory sentencing purposes and factors; sentence therefore contrary to law	Court: within statutory range; presumes consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 from silent record; assignment rejected
Whether consecutive sentences were supported by required statutory findings	State: consecutive sentences necessary to protect public and punish, supported by record	Cozzone: record does not support the statutory findings, so consecutive sentences unlawful	Court: trial court made some findings at hearing but included an (C)(4)(a) finding in entry that was never made at hearing and record does not support (C)(4)(c); consecutive findings not supported — reversed and remanded for resentencing
Whether Cozzone’s violation was a “technical” community‑control violation limiting prison to 180 days under amended R.C. 2929.15(B)	State: violation was not technical because it involved overdosing on heroin and constituted criminal conduct	Cozzone: violation was technical; 2017 amendment limits exposure to 180 days per case	Court: overdose is criminal in nature, not a ‘‘technical’’ violation; (C)(1)(c) limitation inapplicable; assignment rejected
Whether trial court properly entertained and ruled on motion for reconsideration of sentence	State: court invited briefing on R.C. 2929.15 applicability but sentence was final	Cozzone: sought reconsideration based on amended statute	Court: motion for reconsideration of a final criminal judgment is a nullity; court properly refused to reconsider; claim not considered further

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the entry; findings discernible in record suffice)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review standard for sentences; reversal/modification only if sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (trial court not required to use specific language to show consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors)
State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 66 Ohio St.3d 121 (1993) (definition and examples of "technical" parole violations)