[Cite as State v. Snider, 2014-Ohio-2184.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100319 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

JOHN SNIDER

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-12-568969 

BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, J., Rocco, P.J., and Keough, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 22, 2014
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 

Joseph Medici 

Jay Milano 

Milano Pasch Medici 

2639 Wooster Road 

Rocky River, Ohio 44116 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Brett Kyker 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor, Justice Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant John Snider appeals his sentence that was rendered in 

the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Snider argues that the trial court erred in 

imposing consecutive sentences without making required findings and that the imposition 

of consecutive sentences was not supported by the record. Finding merit to the instant 

appeal, we reverse and remand. 

{¶2} On May 20, 2013, Snider pleaded guilty to three counts of pandering 

sexually oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(2), 17 counts 

of pandering in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(1) and one count of possession of criminal 

tools. 

{¶3} The trial court imposed two-year prison terms for each of the three 

violations of R.C. 2907.322(A)(2) and ordered these terms to be served consecutively. 

The trial court also sentenced Snider to two-year prison terms on the remaining counts of 

pandering and a one-year prison term for possession of criminal tools. These counts 

were ordered to be served concurrently. Snider appeals asserting the following two 

assignments of error: 

I. The trial court’s sentence was contrary to the law in imposing consecutive 

sentences persuant [sic] to ORC 2929.14 & ORC 2953.08. 

II. The trial court’s sentence was not supported by the record in the case 

persuant [sic] to ORC 2929.14 & ORC 2953.08. 

{¶4} When reviewing a felony sentence, we follow the standard of review set 

forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which provides in relevant part: 

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. 

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 for 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: 

(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; 

(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. 

Id. 

{¶5} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial 

court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as well as 

the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies postrelease 

control and sentences a defendant within the permissible statutory range. State v. A.H., 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10, citing State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio 

St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124. 

{¶6} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) authorizes the court to require an offender to serve 

multiple prison terms consecutively for convictions on multiple offenses. Consecutive 

sentences can be imposed if the court finds that (1) a consecutive sentence is necessary to 

protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and (2) that consecutive 

sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the 

danger the offender poses to the public. In addition to these two factors, the court must 
find any of 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. 

Id. 

{¶7} In the present case, the record reflects that the trial court failed to make the 

findings required to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The 

state concedes this error. 

{¶8} Additionally, Snider argues that certain factual findings referenced by the 

trial court at sentencing were incorrect and did not support the imposition of consecutive 

sentences or any of the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). However, this court has 

previously refused to review the propriety of hypothetical R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings 

that a trial court did not, in fact, make. State v. Finney, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99646, 

2014-Ohio-1054, ¶ 5. As we explained in Finney, this would be “putting the cart before 

the horse.” The lack of the required findings prior to imposing consecutive sentences is 

error, and we must vacate Snider’s sentence and remand for resentencing. State v. 

Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891, 992 N.E.2d 453 (8th Dist.). 
{¶9} Snider’s first assignment of error is sustained and we find his second 

assignment of error to be moot at this time. 

{¶10} Snider’s sentence is vacated, and this cause is remanded to the trial court to 

consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and if 

so, to enter the proper findings on the record. 

{¶11} Reversed and remanded to the lower court for resentencing consistent with 

this opinion. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR