The Supreme Court of Ohio today upheld the nearly 30-year prison sentence imposed on a former high-school teacher who groomed two 17-year-old students to engage in sexual activity with him and threatened their expulsion if they reported him.

A Supreme Court majority affirmed Anthony Polizzi’s 358-month prison sentence imposed by the Lake County Common Pleas Court. Polizzi argued that the total amount, or aggregate, of his prison term did not fit the seriousness of his crime or the harm to his victims.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Megan E. Shanahan explained today’s decision establishes that Ohio criminal sentencing law gives a trial court discretion to consider the total length of a prison sentence but does not require it to do so when deciding whether to impose consecutive sentences. The decision also stated an appeals court can only modify the total prison term if it finds by clear and convincing evidence the record does not support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings or is otherwise contrary to law.

“Although some may view Polizzi’s aggregate prison term as lengthy, it reflects the number and severity of offenses committed by Polizzi. Both the trial court and the appellate court adhered to the General Assembly's directives in imposing and reviewing Polizzi’s aggregate prison term totaling 358 months,” Justice Shanahan wrote.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Daniel R. Hawkins joined Justice Shanahan’s opinion.

In a concurring in judgment only opinion, Justice Patrick F. Fischer agreed with the majority that the trial court properly imposed, and the appellate court correctly affirmed Polizzi's lengthy sentence. However, he argued the majority has misinterpreted the law on consecutive sentencing. Justice Fischer wrote that for the trial court to impose consecutive sentences upon an offender, the sentencing law requires the trial court to conduct a proportionality analysis that requires the court to evaluate the range of possible consecutive sentences and choose a number of sentences that would total an amount of prison time that corresponds to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and the danger the offender poses to the public. The law also allows appellate courts to independently verify whether the trial court’s sentencing findings are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, but requires the appellate court to take as true the trial court’s factual findings underlying the sentencing findings if they are supported by  “some competent, credible evidence.”

Justice Jennifer Brunner joined Justice Fischer’s concurrence in judgment only, except that she noted the sentencing law also requires the trial court to compare its proposed sentence to sentences imposed in similar cases.

Former Students Report Teacher’s Sexual Offenses
Polizzi was serving as a teacher, student advisor, and coach when he engaged in sexual activity in 2008 with a student identified in court records as “E.L.” The sexual activity continued until after E.L. graduated. Several years after their encounters ended, Polizzi tried to contact E.L., but she refused to have anything to do with him. In 2010, Polizzi began having sexual contact with another 17-year-old student, identified as “N.M.” Another student reported to the school administration that Polizzi was having an inappropriate relationship with N.M. The school fired Polizzi.

Two years later, Polizzi sent sexual and vulgar comments to N.M. in text messages, and he appeared at her place of employment. She reported their earlier sexual activity when she was a teen and Polizzi’s recent conduct to the police. Both students reported that Polizzi threatened to have them expelled from school if they reported on his conduct.

The investigation eventually led to Polizzi being indicted on 81 counts of sexual offenses against the two former students. In 2018, Polizzi agreed to plead guilty to six counts of sexual battery and two counts of gross sexual imposition.

Extensive Appeal Follows Sentence
The trial court sentenced Polizzi to the maximum sentence for each of the eight counts. The court then ran the sentences consecutively, resulting in a total prison term of 33 years. He was also classified as a Tier III sex offender.

Polizzi appealed his sentence, and the Eleventh District Court of Appeals vacated it. The appeals court ruled the record did not support the findings required to impose the lengthy sentence. The trial court conducted a resentencing hearing, and the Lake County Prosecutor’s Office presented additional materials to support the maximum sentences. The trial court also considered additional victim impact statements made by the women and heard from Polizzi. The trial court reduced the total sentence from 33 years to 358 months (29 years, 10 months).

Polizzi appealed his sentence again, and in a 2-1 decision, the Eleventh District affirmed the trial court’s sentence.

Polizzi then appealed the sentence to the Supreme Court in 2022. The Court accepted his appeal but held it pending its decision in another case addressing how trial courts impose, and how courts of appeals review consecutive sentences.

As Polizzi’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued conflicting opinions interpreting the state law on imposing consecutive sentences. After issuing its State v. Gwynne decision in 2023, the Supreme Court remanded Polizzi’s case to the Eleventh District. The appeals court affirmed Polizzi’s sentence, and he again appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

The Court agreed to consider Polizzi’s argument that trial and appellate courts must consider the overall number of consecutive sentences and the aggregate sentence when imposing or reviewing consecutive sentences.

Supreme Court Analyzed Sentencing Law
Justice Shanahan explained the Court addressed consecutive sentencing and the role of appeals courts when reviewing sentencing in the 2023 Gwynne decision and its 2024 State v. Glover ruling. While the Court in both cases ruled similarly, neither case produced a majority opinion of four or more justices. Today’s opinion is the first by a Court majority to adopt the leading opinions of those two prior cases.

Ohio’s sentencing law focuses the trial court’s attention on one offense at a time, the opinion explained. In felony sentencing, a judge imposes a separate prison term for each offense. In cases with multiple offenses, the judge has discretion to determine whether the sentences must be served concurrently or consecutively.

A trial court must follow the guidelines in R.C. 2929.14(C) to impose sentences consecutively. The law requires the trial court to find that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public and are “not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public.”

Based on the explicit messages Polizzi sent to N.M. two years after their sexual activity ended, the trial court found consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public. The trial court also found consecutives sentences were not disproportionate to the danger Polizzi posed, given his lack of remorse for his actions, and that he failed to appreciate the impact his actions had on his victims.

The trial court also made an additional finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C) that the harm caused by Polizzi's multiple offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term would be adequate punishment.

Contrary to Polizzi’s argument, the law does not require the trial court to consider the total length of the sentence before deciding how many prison terms to run consecutively, the opinion stated.

The Court also examined the role of the appellate court. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires the appellate court to review the findings the trial court made when deciding to impose consecutive sentences. The appeals court can only modify the consecutive sentences if the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s conclusion or the sentence is “contrary to law,” the Court stated.

“The appellate court cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment based on subjective disagreement with the trial court,” the opinion stated.

An appeals court’s review defers to the trial court’s discretion, the Court wrote. The Eleventh District followed the law when it affirmed the trial court’s sentence for Polizzi, the Court concluded.

Law Requires Proportionality Analysis Establishing Total Sentence, Concurrence Maintained
Citing his separate opinion in Glover, Justice Fischer wrote that the structure of the state sentencing statutes requires a trial court to consider the total prison term in order to determine whether the sentence meets the requirement of not being disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and the danger to the public.

Justice Fischer noted the majority examined only the language in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when concluding that the aggregate prison term does not have to be considered. However, when read in conjunction with R.C. 2929.14(C)(9), the General Assembly does require the trial court to consider the total time, the concurrence maintained. The total time is key to the proportionality analysis to ensure that the punishment fits the crime, he wrote. 

The concurrence stated that the majority opinion reads the phrase “not disproportionate” as not requiring the trial court to find that the sentences are proportionate or that the punishment matches the seriousness of the offender’s conduct. Justice Fischer wrote the General Assembly’s use of the double negative – not disproportionate – means “proportionate,” and the trial court must first know the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and the danger the offender poses. The trial court then must consider whether all or some of the sentences need to be run consecutively to match the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and the danger the offender posed.

And Justice Fischer determined that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) makes clear that an appeals court does not defer to the trial court’s consecutive-sentencing decision. Instead, the appeals court must independently review the entire record and determine whether the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s consecutive sentencing findings. The only deference an appeals court gives to the trial court is in its factual findings, which are taken as true so long as they are supported by some competent, credible evidence.

Justice Fischer stated that the trial court correctly applied the law when it concluded that Polizzi’s sentence was proportionate to his crimes and the danger he poses. And he stated that the appeals court properly affirmed Polizzi’s consecutive sentences because the record did not show that the trial court’s decision was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Justice Fischer noted that Polizzi’s predatory and abusive conduct was not a one-off offense, and that Polizzi had violated the victims’ trust as their school teacher “in a place where they, as children, should feel safe.”

2024-0312. State v. Polizzi, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2588.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.