State v. LaSalla
2013 Ohio 4596
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Between March 2004 and June 2006 LaSalla ran a mortgage-fraud scheme that targeted low‑income, often elderly homeowners; fraudulent loan applications were prepared through his mortgage firm and loan proceeds were diverted to him.
- Codefendants included Crossland Financial employees (Jones, Peterson) and a contractor (Cravotta); 43 fraudulent loans were obtained and many homeowners received little or shoddy work.
- LaSalla was charged by information with five third‑degree felonies: RICO (attempted engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity), money laundering, one theft, and two counts of attempted theft.
- Defense moved to merge the theft counts into the RICO count; the trial court denied merger.
- LaSalla pleaded guilty to all counts; the court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 57 months (RICO, money laundering, theft) and imposed five years of community control on each attempted theft count (run consecutively), plus restitution and costs.
- On appeal the court affirmed that the thefts did not merge with RICO, but reversed the illegal 10‑year community control term and reversed the imposition of consecutive prison terms for lack of required statutory findings, remanding for correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether theft and attempted theft counts were allied offenses of similar import to RICO and therefore required merger | State argued RICO is a distinct offense that can be punished separately from predicate crimes; merger not required | LaSalla argued the thefts were the predicate acts underlying RICO and thus should merge with the RICO count | The court held offenses are not allied; RICO (use of an enterprise to commit a pattern) is separate from individual thefts because the RICO conduct involved distinct, continuing enterprise behavior and separate animus |
| Whether imposition of both prison and community control sanctions was improper | State: court may impose prison on some counts and community control on others | LaSalla argued a defendant cannot be sentenced to community control following imprisonment (relying on Hayes) | Held: Distinction from Hayes; court may impose prison on some counts and community control on others; no error here |
| Whether the consecutive five‑year community control terms (totaling ten years) were lawful | State originally defended sentence but conceded error on duration | LaSalla argued consecutive five‑year community control sanctions exceeded statutory maximum | Held: Agreed with LaSalla; R.C. limits total community control to five years; reversed and remanded for lawful community control term |
| Whether the consecutive prison sentences were lawful | State contended sentences were appropriate | LaSalla argued trial court failed to make required findings for consecutive terms and sentence was disproportionate to codefendants' sentences | Held: Trial court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; consecutive sentences reversed and remanded for the court to decide and place findings on the record; disproportionate‑to‑codefendants claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (establishes two‑part test for allied offenses of similar import)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (RICO enterprise concept requires an ongoing organization separate from predicate acts)
- State v. Geiger, 169 Ohio App.3d 374 (2006) (construing statutory limits on duration of community control)
- State v. Thrower, 62 Ohio App.3d 359 (1989) (legislative intent behind Ohio RICO to permit separate punishment for patterns of corrupt activity)