State v. Mazzola, 2019 Ohio 845

In Aug. 2017, Steven J. Mazzola broke into his sister’s home and stole about $925 in property; indicted for second‑degree burglary and later pleaded guilty to an amended charge of third‑degree burglary.
Trial court accepted the plea, ordered a presentence investigation, and held a sentencing hearing.
At sentencing Mazzola cited long‑term drug addiction and promised to repay the victim (said he would use his income‑tax refund).
Court noted Mazzola’s extensive criminal history (24 prior convictions, 10 thefts), prior probation and program failures, and two prior prison terms.
Court sentenced Mazzola to the statutory maximum (36 months) for a third‑degree felony and ordered restitution of $925.
Mazzola appealed, challenging (1) the imposition of the maximum term and (2) the restitution order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposition of the 36‑month maximum sentence was proper	State: sentence is within statutory range and court complied with sentencing statutes	Mazzola: maximum sentence was an abuse of discretion given substance‑abuse nexus, victim’s support for treatment, and probation alternatives	Affirmed: term within statutory range; record shows court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; not contrary to law
Whether ordering $925 restitution was proper	State: restitution authorized for victim’s economic loss and court considered ability to pay	Mazzola: court failed to consider future ability to pay and was told restitution would not be required	Affirmed: Mazzola promised to pay; court reviewed PSI and expressly found defendant could make restitution; no plain error shown

State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (explains that specific findings are not required to impose the maximum statutory term)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (addresses appellate standard of review for felony sentences under amended R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (1990) (describes narrow application of plain‑error review in criminal cases)