[Cite as State v. Lime, 2014-Ohio-2647.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100515

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

MARK LIME

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-12-567359 

 BEFORE: Blackmon, J., Boyle, A.J., and S. Gallagher, J. 

 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 19, 2014
2

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

David L. Doughten 

David L. Doughten Co. L.P.A. 

4403 St. Clair Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44103

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: T. Allan Regas 

Matthew E. Meyer 

Assistant County Prosecutors 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: 
3

{¶1} Appellant Mark Lime appeals his sentence and assigns the following error 

for our review: 

The trial court erred by sentencing the appellant to serve consecutive 

sentences without submitting adequate reasons in support pursuant to R.C. 

2929.14(C). 

{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we reverse and remand for 

the trial court to resentence Lime as to the consecutive sentence. The apposite facts 

follow. 

Facts

{¶3} On September 28, 2012, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Lime in 

a multi-count indictment for one count of theft in office, one count of theft, 36 counts for 

tampering with records, and 36 counts of unauthorized use of property/computer system. 

The charges arose from his stealing money from the reparation fees paid by bail 

bondsmen when he was the supervisor of the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts Criminal 

Division. From 2004 until he was caught in 2011, he had stolen $8,765. 

{¶4} On July 25, 2013, Lime pled guilty to one count of theft in office, 18 counts 

of tampering with records, and 18 counts of unauthorized use of a computer. It was 

agreed that the tampering with evidence counts and the unauthorized use of a computer 

counts were allied offenses and would merge. The remaining counts were nolled. 

{¶5} The trial court sentenced Lime to 30 months for count one, theft in office, 

and 30 months for count three, tampering with records, to be served consecutively to each 
4

other. The court also sentenced Lime to nine months on the remaining 17 counts of 

tampering with records to be served concurrently with the counts one and three. 

Therefore, Lime received a total sentence of five years in prison. The trial court ordered 

Lime to pay restitution in the sum of $8,765 and imposed a fine of $5,000 to be paid into 

the Victims of Crime Assistance Fund. 

Consecutive Sentence

{¶6} In his sole assigned error, Lime argues that the trial court failed to make the 

requisite findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C) in ordering count three to be served 

consecutively to count one. 

{¶7} Appellate courts review consecutive sentences using the standard set forth 

in R.C. 2953.08. State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891, 992 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.). 

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the 

imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the appellate court, on its review, clearly and 

convincingly finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” 

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or (2) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.” Id. at ¶ 11. 

{¶8} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires a trial court to make three separate and distinct 

findings before imposing consecutive sentences. The statute requires the court to find 

(1) “that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to 

punish the offender[,]” (2) “that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the 
5

seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,” 

and (3) that any of the following apply: 

(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 postrelease 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. 

{¶9} Compliance with this statute “requires separate and distinct findings in 

addition to any findings relating to purposes and goals of criminal sentencing.” Venes at ¶ 

17. “By stating the findings on the record, the reviewing court will not have to guess as 

to the trial court’s thought process or impose its own. This helps the reviewing court to 

understand whether the trial court made the appropriate analysis.” State v. Davis, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97689, 97691, and 97692, 2012-Ohio-3951, ¶ 16 (Blackmon, J., 

concurring). The failure to make these findings is contrary to law. Venes at 

¶ 12. 

{¶10} Review of the sentencing transcript shows that prior to sentencing Lime, the 

trial court discussed Lime’s lack of integrity and honesty by virtue of the fact he created 
6

the scheme to steal the money, the lengthy period of time over which the thefts occurred, 

and how the general corruption in the county has harmed the county. The trial court then 

stated as follows: 

Great harm. So great that I agree with the State. That no single prison 

term would demean— would be enough because it would demean the 

seriousness of your crime. Especially seven years minimum, every 

weekend. 

As I read some of these reports, I believe you even forbade other people 

from handling these payments. Even if you were busy, the bondsmen had 

to wait for you to be available to handle this. 

You created the policies and the practices which aided you in your scheme 

and also made it very difficult, if not impossible in some cases, for the 

county to actually find all of your thefts. 

So, this court is going to impose consecutive sentences based on those 

findings, and this court is going to impose a maximum term — no, the 

court will impose 30 months on theft in office, Count 1. * * * 

And I am going to impose 30 months on Count 3. That will run 

consecutive to Count 1. 

Tr. 51-52. 

{¶11} Based on the above, the trial court plausibly only made the third finding by 

stating the harm was so great it would demean the seriousness of his crimes. The court 

failed to make the first and second findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The court said 

nothing about whether “the consecutive service 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.” We find that because the court failed to comply with R.C. 
7

2929.14(C)(4), its imposition of consecutive sentences is contrary to law. Accordingly, 

we remand the matter for the trial court to resentence Lime regarding the consecutive 

portion of his sentence. Lime’s sole assigned error is sustained. 

{¶12} Judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing. 

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

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Cuyahoga Court of Common 

Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for 

execution of sentence. 

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

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR