State v. Passalacqua, 2023 Ohio 3525

Defendant Joseph A. Passalacqua pleaded guilty in two Lake County cases to aggravated drug-trafficking and aggravated-possession offenses and was placed on five years of community control in each case with treatment, employment, abstinence, and license-reinstatement conditions.
He repeatedly violated community-control conditions (failure to report to probation, admitted methamphetamine and marijuana use multiple times, a marijuana citation), and remained unemployed and without a reinstated driver’s license.
After an earlier sanction (jail time and a 30-day jail treatment program), he again violated conditions; the trial court found him no longer amenable to community control.
The trial court terminated community control and imposed prison terms: in the 2021 case, concurrent 18- and 12-month terms (aggregate for that case), and in the 2022 case, 12 months; the court ordered the two case sentences served consecutively for a 30-month total.
The court made the consecutive-sentence findings on the record but omitted the statutory R.C. 2929.14(C) findings from the written sentencing entries.
On appeal, Passalacqua argued the record did not clearly and convincingly support consecutive-sentence findings and that his sentence was contrary to law because he sought inpatient treatment instead of prison; the appellate court affirmed but remanded for nunc pro tunc entries to include the findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Passalacqua)	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Record and defendant’s history support the statutory findings; consecutive terms necessary to protect public and punish	Record did not clearly and convincingly support consecutive findings — violations largely drug use and missed reporting; seeks treatment, not prison	Affirmed: record supports findings; consecutive terms lawful
Whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law because defendant sought treatment	Court could consider request but facts and criminal history justify prison; treatment request does not render sentence illegal	Sentence is contrary to law because community-control purpose favors treatment alternatives	Rejected: treatment request does not make sentence contrary to law
Whether the trial court complied with Bonnell requirements in entries	Findings were made at sentencing hearing	Challenge: trial court failed to incorporate findings into written entries	Remanded for nunc pro tunc entries to incorporate the on-the-record R.C. 2929.14(C) findings
Standard of appellate review for consecutive sentences	Appellate court should affirm unless record clearly and convincingly does not support findings	N/A (defendant bears burden to show lack of support)	Court reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and found no clear-and-convincing deficiency

State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (court must make consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the entry; reasons not required)
State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio 2013) (appellate review: affirm consecutive sentences unless record clearly and convincingly fails to support required findings)