State v. Snyder
2013 Ohio 2046
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Snyder was indicted on three counts: Count I—illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material (amended to attempted illegal use, felony of the third degree); Count II—pandering obscenity involving a minor (felony of the fourth degree); Count III—tampering with evidence (felony of the third degree).
- The April 6, 2011 incident involved Snyder supervising a two-year-old girl and taking nude photos; the photos were discovered by the cousin’s wife and reported to police.
- Snyder pleaded guilty to Count I as amended and counts II and III remained as originally indicted; initial sentencing in 2011 imposed a total of 77 months.
- On direct appeal, this court remanded for de novo sentencing under House Bill 86, directing sentencing be based on the record, not conjecture.
- During remand in 2012, the trial court considered an ORAS score of low risk but with a professional override indicating very high risk due to the offense; the court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 35 months (Count I), 17 months (Count II), and 12 months (Count III), with concurrent handling for Count III, and later entered a judgment altering Count I to 36 months and prohibiting contact with victims.
- Snyder appealed, challenging several sentencing rulings, and the court ultimately affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing on Count I, while vacating the no-contact order and fining other aspects of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count I sentence was contrary to law | Snyder (State) argues Count I sentence conflicted with Crim.R. 43 and statutory ranges. | Snyder contends the oral sentence and judgment entry were inconsistent and thus invalid. | Yes; Count I sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing. |
| Whether the court properly applied sentencing purposes and factors and used the ORAS override | State argues proper consideration of 2929.11–12 factors and weight given to override. | Snyder asserts misapplication of factors and improper reliance on override. | Court’s handling affirmed for Counts II–III; no reversal based on ORAS override. |
| Whether the court properly addressed shock incarceration/intensive program eligibility | State asserts eligibility issues and court did not need explicit reasons for disapproval. | Snyder argues failure to state reasons for disapproval was reversible. | Harmless error; ineligibility based on sex-offense felonies; no reversible error. |
| Whether consecutive sentences were proper given record of harm | State relied on great or unusual harm to justify consecutiveness. | No evidence in record supports great harm; consecutive sentences improper. | Consecutive sentences reversed; remanded for resentencing on Counts I–III as appropriate. |
| Whether the no-contact order alongside imprisonment violated sentencing scheme | No-contact order treated as community control, duplicating punishment. | Dual penalties not permitted. | No-contact order vacated as improper alongside resentence on Count I. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Railey, 2012-Ohio-4233 (1st Dist. 2012) (Crim.R. 43(a) presence; sentencing-order inconsistency requires remand)
- State v. Kovach, 2009-Ohio-2892 (7th Dist. 2009) (Sentence alignment with oral pronouncement; due-process concerns)
- State v. Jordan, 2006-Ohio-5208 (10th Dist. 2006) (Crim.R. 43; remedy for misalignment between oral sentence and judgment entry)
- State v. Daughenbaugh, 2007-Ohio-5774 (3d Dist. 2007) (Meaningful review of sentence; authority to remand for re-sentencing when needed)
- State v. Twyford, 2002-Ohio-340 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2002) (Plain-error standard; prosecutorial misconduct review at sentencing)