Background
Dominick Funaro was indicted on June 11, 2025, on 12 counts of sexual battery under R.C. 2907.03 involving a 13-year-old relative. Four counts constituted second-degree felonies and eight constituted fourth-degree felonies. The offenses occurred over a six-month period. Initially, Funaro and the prosecution reached a plea agreement with a recommended 30-year sentence, but the trial court halted the initial plea colloquy when it determined Funaro did not fully understand the charges or his rights.
At a second plea hearing on August 7, 2025, the parties indicated there was no plea agreement, and Funaro entered guilty pleas to all 12 counts. The trial court conducted an appropriate plea colloquy confirming Funaro understood the charges and rights he was forfeiting. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court expressly stated it had considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.
The trial court imposed sentences of 6 to 9 years on each of the four second-degree felonies, ordered consecutive to each other, and 12-month sentences on each fourth-degree felony, ordered concurrent with each other and with the second-degree felonies, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 24 to 27 years. Funaro was designated a Tier III sex offender and appealed.
The Court’s Holding
Funaro’s sole argument on appeal was that his sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12. The Court of Appeals rejected this contention.
The court confirmed that a trial court must consider the statutory criteria in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 for every felony offense, though it need not make specific factual findings on the record. The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public, punish the offender, and promote rehabilitation using minimum sanctions necessary to accomplish those purposes. A sentence must fall within the statutory range for the offense and must be reasonably calculated to achieve these purposes, commensurate with the seriousness of the conduct. When reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts apply a clear and convincing standard, vacating only if the sentence falls outside the statutory range or if the sentencing court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
Here, the court found no basis for reversal. Each sentence fell within the statutory ranges for second- and fourth-degree felonies. Critically, the trial court expressly stated at both the sentencing hearing and in the written sentencing entry that it had considered both R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, and the record demonstrated the trial court explained its reasoning regarding these factors. The judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts must consider statutory sentencing purposes under R.C. 2929.11 and sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12, but need not make explicit factual findings on the record.
- A sentence is contrary to law only if it falls outside the statutory range or if the sentencing court fails to consider the required statutory factors.
- Appellate courts review felony sentences under a clear and convincing standard and cannot vacate based solely on disagreement with the sentence when it falls within range and required factors were considered.
- Express consideration of sentencing factors by the trial court—whether stated at hearing or in the sentencing entry—satisfies the legal requirement.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies and reinforces the procedural requirements for felony sentencing in Ohio. By affirming despite Funaro’s challenge, the court confirmed that trial courts have substantial discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory range once the mandatory sentencing criteria are considered. The opinion emphasizes that appellate review of sentences has narrow grounds: sentencing courts need not engage in elaborate written findings or articulations, only consideration and application of the statutory framework.
The decision has practical significance for both prosecutors and defense counsel in sexual battery cases and other felony matters. It establishes that sentencing within range with evidence of statutory consideration will withstand appellate challenge, reducing the likelihood of reversal on sentencing grounds. For defendants, it illustrates the limited grounds available for appealing sentences when trial courts follow the statutory framework.