[Cite as State v. Gazella, 2025-Ohio-4634.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2025-L-031 2025-L-032 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeals from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas
RICHARD A. GAZELLA, III, Trial Court Nos. 2024 CR 000758 Defendant-Appellant. 2024 CR 001406
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: October 6, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Vanessa R. Clapp, Lake County Public Defender, and Jamie R. Eck, Assistant Public Defender, 100 West Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant-Appellant).
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Richard A. Gazella, III, appeals two judgments on sentence of
the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Gazella takes issue with the consecutive nature
of the sentences imposed by the trial court. We affirm.
{¶2} On December 19, 2024, in Case No. 24CR000758, Gazella pleaded guilty
to one count of attempted domestic violence, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of
R.C. 2919.25(A) and 2923.02. Gazella was referred to the Lake County Adult Probation
Department for a presentence investigation report (“PSI”), a victim impact statement, a
drug and alcohol evaluation, and a psychological evaluation. {¶3} In February 2025, Gazella appeared for sentencing in Case No.
24CR000758; prior to proceeding to sentencing, however, Gazella pleaded guilty via
information to one count of trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely to
be present, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(B). See Case No.
24CR001406. Because the PSI was prepared, the trial court proceeded to sentencing in
both cases.
{¶4} In Case No. 24CR000758, Gazella was sentenced to a term of 11 months
in prison, and in Case No. 24CR001406, he was sentenced to a prison term of 12 months.
The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to one another.
{¶5} Gazella appeals the trial court’s sentencing entry and assigns the following
as error:
{¶6} “The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant-appellant to consecutive
prison sentences of eleven months on count one in case 24CR000758 and twelve months
on count one in case 24CR001406, totaling twenty-three months, as that sentence is
contrary to law.
{¶7} Under this assignment of error, Gazella concedes the trial court made the
necessary statutory findings to impose consecutive sentences. He contends, however,
that the sentences are contrary to law because the record lacks clear and convincing
evidence that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public. We do not
agree.
{¶8} Review of felony sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G) which provides
that the appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate and
remand the sentence, if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence to be contrary to
PAGE 2 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 law. See, e.g., State v. Lamb, 2023-Ohio-2834, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.). A sentence is contrary to
law when it is outside the statutory range for the offense or if the trial court does not
consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and
the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Shannon, 2021-Ohio-789, ¶ 11
(11th Dist.).
{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), separate prison terms for multiple offenses
may be ordered to be served consecutively if the court finds it is necessary to protect the
public from future crime or to punish the offender; that consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the
offender poses to the public; and if the court also finds any of the factors in R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) are present. Those factors include the following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶10} In cases where the trial court makes the appropriate findings to impose
consecutive sentences, as it did in this case, this court’s review of the record is limited to
determine whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the imposition of
consecutive sentences. State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 14-15 (plurality).
PAGE 3 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 {¶11} In this matter, the trial court found:
Consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish this offender. They are not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and to the danger he poses to the public. In addition, he committed the second offense while out on bond awaiting trial in the first offense, and his history of criminal conduct demonstrates consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by him.
{¶12} With these points in mind, Gazella notes that, in State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-
9259, ¶ 81 (11th Dist.), the lead opinion observed:
[T]here are two somewhat redundant findings required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court must first make the threshold finding that consecutive sentences are “necessary to protect the public from future crime . . . .” The court must then proceed to make an additional finding under (a), (b) or (c). The additional finding under subsection (c) requires the court to find that it is because of the offender’s history of criminal conduct that consecutive sentences are “necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.”
(Emphasis in original.)
{¶13} Based upon this legal point, Gazella argues his sentence is clearly and
convincingly contrary to law because the record reveals consecutive service was not
necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender. See R.C.
2929.14(C)(4). He emphasizes his offenses were prompted by his addictions. He also
points out the contrition he showed at the sentencing hearing. He additionally
underscores his willingness to participate in rehabilitative programs. Given these details,
as well as the recommendations of his psychological evaluation (indicating that treatment
with a jail treatment program and/or dual diagnosis residential treatment program would
be appropriate), he argues consecutive service was not necessary to protect the public.
Building upon this premise, he maintains the trial court’s determination that his history of
PAGE 4 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 criminal conduct is necessary to protect the public from future crime, see R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(c), is undermined by the record.
{¶14} With respect to the lead opinion’s previous observation in Brown, the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Gazella, 2025-Ohio-4634.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2025-L-031 2025-L-032 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeals from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas
RICHARD A. GAZELLA, III, Trial Court Nos. 2024 CR 000758 Defendant-Appellant. 2024 CR 001406
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: October 6, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Vanessa R. Clapp, Lake County Public Defender, and Jamie R. Eck, Assistant Public Defender, 100 West Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant-Appellant).
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Richard A. Gazella, III, appeals two judgments on sentence of
the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Gazella takes issue with the consecutive nature
of the sentences imposed by the trial court. We affirm.
{¶2} On December 19, 2024, in Case No. 24CR000758, Gazella pleaded guilty
to one count of attempted domestic violence, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of
R.C. 2919.25(A) and 2923.02. Gazella was referred to the Lake County Adult Probation
Department for a presentence investigation report (“PSI”), a victim impact statement, a
drug and alcohol evaluation, and a psychological evaluation. {¶3} In February 2025, Gazella appeared for sentencing in Case No.
24CR000758; prior to proceeding to sentencing, however, Gazella pleaded guilty via
information to one count of trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely to
be present, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(B). See Case No.
24CR001406. Because the PSI was prepared, the trial court proceeded to sentencing in
both cases.
{¶4} In Case No. 24CR000758, Gazella was sentenced to a term of 11 months
in prison, and in Case No. 24CR001406, he was sentenced to a prison term of 12 months.
The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to one another.
{¶5} Gazella appeals the trial court’s sentencing entry and assigns the following
as error:
{¶6} “The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant-appellant to consecutive
prison sentences of eleven months on count one in case 24CR000758 and twelve months
on count one in case 24CR001406, totaling twenty-three months, as that sentence is
contrary to law.
{¶7} Under this assignment of error, Gazella concedes the trial court made the
necessary statutory findings to impose consecutive sentences. He contends, however,
that the sentences are contrary to law because the record lacks clear and convincing
evidence that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public. We do not
agree.
{¶8} Review of felony sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G) which provides
that the appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate and
remand the sentence, if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence to be contrary to
PAGE 2 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 law. See, e.g., State v. Lamb, 2023-Ohio-2834, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.). A sentence is contrary to
law when it is outside the statutory range for the offense or if the trial court does not
consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and
the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Shannon, 2021-Ohio-789, ¶ 11
(11th Dist.).
{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), separate prison terms for multiple offenses
may be ordered to be served consecutively if the court finds it is necessary to protect the
public from future crime or to punish the offender; that consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the
offender poses to the public; and if the court also finds any of the factors in R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) are present. Those factors include the following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶10} In cases where the trial court makes the appropriate findings to impose
consecutive sentences, as it did in this case, this court’s review of the record is limited to
determine whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the imposition of
consecutive sentences. State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 14-15 (plurality).
PAGE 3 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 {¶11} In this matter, the trial court found:
Consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish this offender. They are not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and to the danger he poses to the public. In addition, he committed the second offense while out on bond awaiting trial in the first offense, and his history of criminal conduct demonstrates consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by him.
{¶12} With these points in mind, Gazella notes that, in State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-
9259, ¶ 81 (11th Dist.), the lead opinion observed:
[T]here are two somewhat redundant findings required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court must first make the threshold finding that consecutive sentences are “necessary to protect the public from future crime . . . .” The court must then proceed to make an additional finding under (a), (b) or (c). The additional finding under subsection (c) requires the court to find that it is because of the offender’s history of criminal conduct that consecutive sentences are “necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.”
(Emphasis in original.)
{¶13} Based upon this legal point, Gazella argues his sentence is clearly and
convincingly contrary to law because the record reveals consecutive service was not
necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender. See R.C.
2929.14(C)(4). He emphasizes his offenses were prompted by his addictions. He also
points out the contrition he showed at the sentencing hearing. He additionally
underscores his willingness to participate in rehabilitative programs. Given these details,
as well as the recommendations of his psychological evaluation (indicating that treatment
with a jail treatment program and/or dual diagnosis residential treatment program would
be appropriate), he argues consecutive service was not necessary to protect the public.
Building upon this premise, he maintains the trial court’s determination that his history of
PAGE 4 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 criminal conduct is necessary to protect the public from future crime, see R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(c), is undermined by the record.
{¶14} With respect to the lead opinion’s previous observation in Brown, the
findings, while “somewhat redundant” are not necessarily redundant. The full text of R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) provides a court may issue consecutive sentences if it determines it is
necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender. The disjunct
qualifies the distinction between section (C)(4) and subsection (C)(4)(c). In this case, the
trial court determined “[c]onsecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from
future crime and to punish this offender.” Accordingly, the trial court found that community
protection from future crime and punishment were both triggered in Gazella’s case.
{¶15} That said, we conclude the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences
is supported by the record and not contrary to law. Gazella demonstrated remorse and
the trial court observed he “accepted responsibility” in Case No. 24CR001406, the offense
which occurred while he was awaiting sentencing for Case No. 24CR000758. And
regardless of the recommendations of the psychological evaluation, the trial court’s
findings support the imposition of consecutive sentences.
{¶16} The trial court expressly considered the purposes and principles of felony
sentencing, pursuant to R.C. 2929.11. The court also explicitly outlined the factors making
the offenses more serious as well as the aspects of Gazella’s record which indicated
recidivism was likely. See R.C. 2929.12.
{¶17} Regarding the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) factors, the trial court pointed out that
Gazella has a history of criminal convictions, including 12 misdemeanor convictions and
two felony convictions. And Gazella had been sent to prison previously on one of the
PAGE 5 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 previous felony cases. The court’s recidivism concerns and Gazella’s past criminal record
furnish a reasonable and credible foundation for the court to conclude that consecutive
sentences are necessary to protect the public from future criminal acts Gazella might
commit.
{¶18} It is worth noting that our review of the PSI indicates Gazella has 18
misdemeanor convictions (several of which were minor misdemeanors). Also, while he
had been sentenced to prison in one felony case, in the other felony, his sentence
included a requirement that he successfully complete a jail treatment program and follow
all aftercare recommendations; attend four alcoholics anonymous meetings per week and
obtain a sponsor; take all medications as prescribed; and submit to random urine
screenings. These points are important to the extent Gazella asserts his criminal history
does not suggest consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public as well as
his claim that additional residential or non-residential treatment was a more appropriate
or effective sentencing option.
{¶19} Moreover, even though the trial court reviewed the presentence
investigation report as a basis for its sentencing decision, the judge pointed to only several
of the salient facts supporting his decision. The PSI record reveals substantially more
evidence supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences. Gazella committed the
offense in the second case while awaiting sentencing on the first case, despite having
received a favorable plea arrangement that allowed him to plead guilty to what is
characterized as “attempted, attempted domestic violence”—an artificial construct that
reduced his exposure from a fourth-degree felony under R.C. 2919.25(D)(3) to a fifth-
degree felony.
PAGE 6 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 {¶20} And, as noted previously, the record demonstrates a pattern of
unsuccessful rehabilitation attempts and continued recidivism. Gazella was ordered to
participate in a jail treatment program in 2016, followed by the Northeast Ohio Community
Alternative Program after violating community control, and after another violation of
community control, was sentenced to prison. Gazella later engaged in further treatment
at Silver Maple Recovery in Lorain in 2021. He maintains that he successfully completed
these programs. Despite these multiple intervention opportunities, Gazella continues to
use drugs, which he attributes as the cause of his criminal behavior in both cases on
appeal.
{¶21} Gazella’s recent criminal activity occurred shortly after his release from his
second prison commitment on January 11, 2024—he committed the offense in Case
24CR000758 merely 75 days later. In both incidents underlying the cases on appeal,
Gazella attempted to evade arrest by fleeing or concealing himself. Additionally, the
record suggests Gazella may have violated a protective or restraining order when
committing the criminal trespass charge in Case 24CR001406, though he was permitted
to avoid that additional charge.
{¶22} The record further reflects Gazella’s chronic disregard for legal obligations,
evidenced by ten convictions for driving without a license or under suspension. His
credibility with authorities is also questionable: although he obtained a medical marijuana
card on October 1, 2024, and claimed to purchase marijuana from dispensaries, the
OARRS report shows no such purchases. Finally, Gazella’s Ohio Risk Assessment
System score of 27 indicates a moderate to high risk of reoffending, supporting the trial
court’s concern for public protection.
PAGE 7 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 {¶23} In sum, Gazella did, as a matter of fact, commit the second offense while
he was awaiting sentencing on the first offense. See R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a). The trial court
expressly made this finding at the sentencing hearing. This finding, in conjunction with
the trial court’s proper “criminal-history” finding, is sufficient to meet the court’s burden
under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c). And the information disclosed in the PSI reflects
multiple, additional bases to buttress the trial court’s consecutive sentencing order.
{¶24} There is nothing to indicate that the trial court erred in sentencing Gazella
to consecutive sentences. Gazella’s assignment of error is without merit.
{¶25} The Lake County Court of Common Pleas’ judgments are affirmed.
ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
PAGE 8 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032 JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error
is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgments of the Lake
County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI
PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON, concurs
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 9 OF 9
Case Nos. 2025-L-031 and 2025-L-032