STATE OF OHIO, Plаintiff-Appellee, - vs - STEVEN JAMES MAZZOLA, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. 2018-T-0029
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO
2019-Ohio-845
[Cite as State v. Mazzola, 2019-Ohio-845.]
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2017 CR 00630. Judgment: Affirmed.
Michael A. Partlow, 112 South Water Street, Suite C, Kent OH 44240 (For Defendant-Appellant).
O P I N I O N
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} Steven James Mazzola appeals the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas imposing sentence on a conviction for burglary, a third-degree felony. Specifically, Mr. Mazzola challenges the trial court‘s imposition of: (1) the maximum available prison term of 36 months, and (2) restitution. After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
{¶2} On August 26, 2017, Mr. Mazzola broke into the home occupied by his sister and her roommate and stole items worth approximately $925. The Trumbull County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Mazzola on a single charge of burglary, a second-degree felony. Mr. Mazzola initially entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶3} Subsequently, Mr. Mazzоla entered a plea of guilty to an amended indictment of burglary, a third-degree felony. Upon accepting the plea, the trial court found him guilty, ordered a presentence investigation, and set the case for sentencing.
{¶4} At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Mazzola referenced his long history of drug addiction and asked for another chance. The trial court and Mr. Mazzola also engaged in the following exchange:
{¶5} “THE COURT: You stole $925 worth of stuff. How much of that have you paid back to the victim?
{¶6} “THE DEFENDANT: She‘s getting everything back –
{¶7} “THE COURT: How much have you paid back to the victim?
{¶8} “THE DEFENDANT: I just got my job a month ago. She‘s going to get her - - I‘m getting my income tax check. She will get every penny.”
{¶9} The trial court then noted that Mr. Mazzola had been convicted of 24 different crimes, with ten of them involving theft. The trial court also referenced Mr. Mazzola‘s numerous prior opportunities on probation, his unsuccessful completion of the Northeast Ohio Community Alternative Program, and as well as two prior prison terms.
{¶10} Ultimately, the trial court imposed a sentence of incarceration of 36 months and ordered Mr. Mazzola to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $925.
{¶12} “[1.] Thе trial court erred by sentencing the appellant to the maximum term of incarceration available.
{¶13} “[2.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion by ordering thаt appellant pay restitution.”
Standard of Review
{¶14} Our consideration of a felony sentence is governed solely by
{¶15} “The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
{¶16} “The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court‘s standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
{¶17} “(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
{¶18} “(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”
{¶19} Under his first assignment of error, Mr. Mazzola argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the maximum prison term of 36 months.1
{¶20} Specific findings are no longer required before the trial court imposes the maximum sentence. State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, ¶37; State v. Aldrich, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2017-A-0033, 2017-Ohio-8944, ¶33. Therefore, “appellate review is limited to determining whether the maximum sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Aldrich at ¶33.
{¶21} The test for deciding whether the sentence is contrary to law is “if the term falls within the statutory range for that particular offense and the record demonstrates that the trial court considered the purpоses and principles of felony sentencing, as stated in
{¶22} Mr. Mazzola pleaded guilty to burglary, a third-degree felony.
{¶23} Furthermore, in the sentencing entry, the trial court specifically stated, in imposing the term, that it considered the principles аnd purposes of sentencing under
{¶25} Since the record demonstrates the trial court complied with its statutory obligations in imposing the maximum prison term, the first assignment of error is without merit.
Order of Restitution
{¶26} Under his second assignment of error, Mr. Mazzola argues that the trial cоurt erred in ordering him to pay restitution to the victim.
{¶27} We note that Mr. Mazzola failed to object to the trial court‘s order of restitution. “Failure to object to the court‘s order of restitution * * * constitutes a waiver of all error except plain error.” State v. Carroll, 11th Dist. Ashtabula Nos. 2017-A-0030 & 2017-A-0031, 2018-Ohio-1884, ¶48, quoting State v. Bernadine, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2010-P-0056, 2011-Ohio-4023, ¶26.
{¶28}
{¶30} However,
{¶31}
{¶32} Mr. Mazzola claims the trial court did not consider his future ability to pay restitution. However, the record directly refutes this claim. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Mazzola specifically promised that he would pay the victim back “every penny” from his “income tax check.”
{¶34} Mr. Mazzola further claims he was told at his plea hearing that restitution would not be required. He also states that the victim did not appear at the sentencing hearing to request restitution. However, evеn if true, Mr. Mazzola has failed to cite any authority demonstrating that such factors are legally significant, especially considering Mr. Mazzola‘s promise to make full restitution and the findings set forth in the trial court‘s sentencing entry.
{¶35} For these reasons, the second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶36} The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.