State v. Palazzolo, 2016 Ohio 7043

Defendant Stephen Palazzolo pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition (third-degree felony) and three counts of attempted gross sexual imposition (fourth-degree felonies) arising from abuse of his young daughter.
PSI and court clinic reports were prepared; the state filed a sentencing memorandum disclosing Palazzolo’s prior convictions for similar offenses in 2002.
At sentencing, defense argued mitigation (employment, military service, remorse) and requested a bifurcated sentence; family members disputed the allegations.
The state emphasized Palazzolo’s prior similar convictions and argued prison was necessary to protect the public.
The trial court imposed maximum terms on three counts and lesser on one, ordered the four sentences to be served consecutively for a total of nine years, and articulated statutory findings at the hearing but failed to include those findings in the written judgment entry.
Palazzolo appealed, arguing (1) error in imposing maximum and consecutive sentences and (2) a due-process/allocution violation because the state allegedly presented new information at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Palazzolo)	Held
Whether maximum sentences were lawful	Court considered R.C. 2929.11 and chapter 2929, and record supports prison terms	Maximum sentences improper because court failed to adequately weigh R.C. 2929.12 seriousness/recidivism factors	Affirmed: sentences within statutory ranges and court stated consideration of required factors
Whether consecutive sentences were lawful	Consecutive terms necessary to protect public; not disproportionate; supported by criminal history	Consecutive terms improper and unsupported by record	Affirmed: trial court made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing; record supports them
Whether failure to include consecutive-sentence findings in judgment entry voids sentence	Findings were made at hearing; omission is clerical and correctable by nunc pro tunc entry	Omission renders sentence contrary to law	Remanded: omission does not make sentence contrary to law; court must issue nunc pro tunc entry adding the findings
Whether defendant’s allocution/due-process rights were violated by state’s comments	State relied on pre-filed sentencing memorandum and did not present new information	State presented new information at sentencing denying adequate opportunity to respond	Overruled: no plain error; defendant and counsel were permitted to allocute and respond; state relied on previously disclosed material

White v. State, 997 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio App. 2013) (standard for appellate review of sentence under R.C. 2953.08)
Bonnell v. Ohio, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court need not use talismanic language but must make/findings permitting consecutive sentences)
Simmons v. State, 19 N.E.3d 517 (Ohio App. 2014) (discusses presumption of concurrent sentences and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis)
Green v. State, 738 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio 2000) (allocution is defendant’s last opportunity to speak or express remorse)