[Cite as State v. Starr, 2016-Ohio-2689.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2015-L-113

 - vs - : 

WILLIAM V. STARR, III, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. 

Case No. 14 CR 000968. 

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). 

Charles R. Grieshammer, Lake County Public Defender, and Vanessa R. Clapp, 

Assistant Public Defender, 125 East Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For 

Defendant-Appellant). 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, William V. Starr, III, appeals the judgment of the Lake County 

Court of Common Pleas sentencing appellant to four years in prison, to be served 

consecutive to an 18-month sentence from Cuyahoga County. Based on the following, 

we affirm. 
 2

{¶2} Appellant pled guilty to one count of Attempted Felonious Assault, a felony 

of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and 2903.11(A)(1), and Obstructing 

Official Business, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.31, stemming 

from an incident that occurred on December 13, 2014. 

{¶3} The trial court sentenced appellant to a jointly-recommended sentence of 

four years in prison: 36 months on the Attempted Felonious Assault count and 12 

months on the Obstructing Official Business count. 

{¶4} Appellant requested this term of imprisonment to run concurrent to an 18-

month prison term he was serving from Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, but 

the trial court ran the sentence consecutive to the Cuyahoga County sentence.1 

{¶5} Appellant appealed and as his sole assignment of error alleges: 

{¶6} “The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant-appellant to a prison 

sentence consecutive to a sentence from a different county.” 

{¶7} Ohio’s felony-sentencing scheme allows judges to exercise discretion 

within established statutory bounds. State v. Ries, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2008-P-0064, 

2009-Ohio-1316, ¶13, citing State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 

paragraph three of the syllabus. Despite having significant latitude, sentencing courts 

are required to follow statutory direction in choosing a prison term. State v. Belew, 140 

Ohio St.3d 221, 2014-Ohio-2964, ¶10 (Lanzinger, J., dissenting). 

{¶8} R.C. 2953.08(G) governs felony sentencing issues on appeal and 

provides: 

(2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of 

this section shall review the record, including the findings 

 

1. Appellant pled guilty to Case Number CR14582895A, charges of Gross Sexual Imposition and 

Abduction in November 2014 and was sentenced in January 2015. 
 3

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. 

{¶9} On appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred in ordering his sentence 

to run consecutive to the sentence he was serving from Cuyahoga County. Because 

we find the trial court satisfied the requisite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, we disagree. 

{¶10} R.C. 2929.41, which governs the imposition of multiple sentences, 

provides, in pertinent part: “[e]xcept as provided in * * * division (C) of section 2929.14, * 

* * a prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment shall be served concurrently

with any other prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of 

this state[.]” R.C. 2929.41(A) (emphasis added). R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides that a 

trial court may require an offender to serve consecutive prison terms if it finds 

that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from 

future crime or to punish the offender and 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 following: 

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiples 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. 
 4

(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. 

{¶11} Although a trial court must make the statutory findings to support its 

decision to impose consecutive cases, it has no obligation to set forth its reasons to 

support its findings as long as they are discernible in the record. State v. Bonnell, 140 

Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶28-29; State v. Jenkins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

101899, 2015-Ohio-2762, ¶9. Failure to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the 

sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the judgment entry of sentence renders 

the sentence contrary to law. Bonnell at ¶37. 

{¶12} Here, the trial court found that consecutive sentences were warranted, 

stating: 

So based on the record here I find that Mr. Starr is not amenable to 

community control and therefore on amended Count 1 I’m imposing 

a sentence of 36 months at the Lorain Correctional Institution. On 

Count 2, I’m imposing a sentence of 12 months at the Lorain 

Correctional Institution consecutive to the term in Count 1 and * * * 

the sentence in this case shall be consecutive to the Cuyahoga 

County case which is CR14582895A. 

I find that in addition to the arguments of counsel that consecutive 

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and 

to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and 

to the danger he poses to the public because one of the big 

concerns here is in the last 20 months the propensity for violence 

that Mr. Starr has exhibited as I said earlier * * * this offense which 

occurred in December of [2014] occurred while, after Mr. Starr 

plead guilty in Cuyahoga County but had not yet been sentenced in 
 5

Cuyahoga County, plead guilty in November of [2014] and was 

sentenced in January of [2015] so this occurred smack in the 

middle of him awaiting sentencing. I find that the defendant’s 

history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive 

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by 

the defendant. 

{¶13} Based on a review of the record, we find the trial court satisfied the 

requisite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in this case both at the sentencing hearing and in 

its entry, and its findings are supported by the record. 

{¶14} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit. 

{¶15} The decision of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J., 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., 

concur.