[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 429 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 430 Appellant Donald Anderson appeals the decisions of the trial court sentencing him to three twelve-month terms of imprisonment and one three-year term of imprisonment. Anderson argues the trial court failed to follow applicable statutory guidelines and failed to make the requisite findings for imposing more than the shortest term available, the maximum term permitted, and consecutive sentences. Anderson assigns the following as errors for our review:
I. WHERE THE RECORD OF THE SENTENCING HEARING CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LOWER COURT MISINTERPRETED AND RELIED UPON TWO INAPPLICABLE STATUTORY FACTORS RELATING TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE(S), UNDER R.C. 2929.12(B) AND THEN BOOTSTRAPPED THE MISAPPLICATION TO MAKE AN UNSUPPORTED AND ERRONEOUS RECIDIVISM FINDING UNDER R.C.2929.12(D), THE ULTIMATE *Page 431 DETERMINATION OF A SENTENCE BASED ON THE SAME; THAT A PRISON TERM WAS CONSISTENT WITH, AND A COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTION INCONSISTENT WITH, THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING, WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) AND IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION/REDUCTION.
II. WHERE THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT APPELLANT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY SERVED A PRISON SENTENCE AND THAT THE SHORTEST PRISON TERM WOULD NEITHER DEMEAN THE SERIOUSNESS OF HIS CONDUCT NOR FAIL TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE PUBLIC, THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE THE SHORTEST PRISON TERM AUTHORIZED, TO-WIT, A TERM OF SIX MONTHS ON EACH OF THE THREE FELONY 5'S AND A TERM OF ONE YEAR ON THE FELONY 3; AND FAILURE TO DO SO WAS, IN LIGHT OF THE RECORD, CONTRARY TO LAW.
III. WHERE THE RECORD CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE OFFENDER NEITHER COMMITTED THE WORST FORM(S) OF THE OFFENSE(S) NOR POSES THE GREATEST LIKELIHOOD OF COMMITTING FUTURE CRIMES, IMPOSING THE LONGEST TERM (ON THREE FELONIES OF THE FIFTH DEGREE) WAS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO LAW, PURSUANT TO R.C. 2929.14(C).
IV. WHERE THE SENTENCING COURT IMPOSES CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES (SERVICE) BASED ON THE RATIONALE THAT THE HARM CAUSED BY MULTIPLE OFFENSES WAS SO GREAT OR UNUSUAL THAT NO SINGLE TERM FOR ANY OF THE OFFENSES ADEQUATELY REFLECTS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENDER'S CONDUCT . . . AND WHERE THERE IS NO SERIOUS OR UNUSUAL, IN ANY HARM; THE COURT'S RATIONALE IS WITHOUT SUPPORT AND ITS CONCLUSION, CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY, CONTRARY TO LAW.
V. THE COURT'S SENTENCE OF SIX (6) YEARS CONSTITUTED CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 9 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow.
On July 25, 2000, a Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Anderson on eighteen counts of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor under R.C. 2907.322(A)(1), each