[Cite as State v. Mattoni , 2021-Ohio-3265.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-21-014 WD-21-015 Appellee Trial Court No. 2020CR0412 v. 2020CR0269 Larry Mattoni, Jr. DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: September 17, 2021

* * * * * Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Jeffrey P. Nunnari, for appellant.

* * * * * PIETRYKOWSKI, J. {¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal defendant-appellant, Larry Mattoni, Jr., appeals the February 5, 2021 judgments of the Wood County Court of Comm on Pleas which following guilty pleas to domestic violence, a fourth-degree fe lony, and breaking and2. entering, a fifth-degree felony, sentenced him to consecutive s entences totaling 30 months of imprisonment. Pursuant to 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 10(H), the state concedes error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the matter for resen tencing. {¶ 2} Relevant to this appeal, the sentencing judgment entries in eac h case provided: “The Court found that pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(B) it is presumed that a prison term is necessary in order to comply with the purposes and prin ciples of sentencing under

R.C. 2929.11.” {¶ 3} On appeal, appellant raises two assignments of error for our re view: Assignment of Error I: The trial court erred to the prejudice o f appellant by imposing sentences under the false belief that a p rison sentence was statutorily presumed. Assignment of Error II: The trial court made different findings in support of consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing than it did in the judgment entries imposing sentence, thereby rendering appellant ’s aggregate sentence contrary to law. {¶ 4} In appellant’s first assignment of error, he contends that in s entencing appellant the trial court mistakenly believed that there was a presumption in favor of a prison sentence. The state concedes this argument and agrees t hat the matter should be remanded for resentencing. {¶ 5} This court had recently addressed similar cases where the trial court erroneously noted the presumption of a prison term under R.C. 2 929.13(B). State v.3. Wheeler , 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-053, 2021-Ohio-1074; State v. Merer , 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-015, 2021-Ohio-1553. In Wheeler , we concluded: Because the error in this case involves a legal judgment as to whether a prison term is presumed, and because we cannot conclu sively

determine from the limited record before us whether the trial c ourt sentenced appellant under the mistaken belief that a prison ter m was presumed, or whether the court simply inadvertently included th at passage in its sentencing entry, we hold that appellant’s sentence must be vacated, and the matter must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. Compare

State v. Showalter , 7th Dist. Belmont No. 16 BE 0027, 2018-Ohio-5411, ¶ 36 (trial court’s incorrect citation to a presumption of a pris on term under R.C. 2929.13(F) could be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry bec ause the record demonstrated that the trial court “clearly considered th e correct law but cited to the wrong revised code section in its sentencing e ntry”).

Id. at ¶ 12. {¶ 6} Accordingly, we find that appellant’s first assignment of error is well-taken. {¶ 7} Appellant’s second assignment of error challenges the court’s i mposition of consecutive prison terms. Based on our disposition of appellan t’s first assignment of error, we find the argument moot and not well-taken.4. {¶ 8} On consideration whereof, we reverse the February 5, 2021 judgm ents of the Wood County Court of Common pleas and remand the matter for res entencing. Pursuant to App.R. 24, the state is ordered to pay the costs of this app eal.

Judgment reversed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pu rsuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. __________________________

__ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J.

____________________________ Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE CONCUR.

____________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.