State v. Snyder
2018 Ohio 2826
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Steven Joseph Snyder was indicted on three counts: two counts of attempted burglary (third-degree felonies) and one count of burglary (second-degree felony) from separate incidents in 2016–2017.
- On April 27, 2017, Snyder entered written and oral pleas of no contest to all three indictments; written plea forms were titled "No Contest" but the signature page contained a few references to a "guilty" plea (one handwritten correction changed one instance to "no contest").
- The trial court accepted the no contest pleas, entered judgments of conviction on May 2, 2017, and held sentencing on June 29, 2017.
- The court imposed consecutive sentences: 3 years for burglary and 1 year each for the two attempted burglaries (total 5 years), but the sentencing entries did not state the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required for consecutive terms.
- Snyder appealed, arguing (1) failure to make required consecutive-sentencing findings, (2) acceptance of a no contest plea without a written jury-waiver, and (3) that references to a "guilty" plea in the written plea agreement undermined the voluntariness/validity of the no contest plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings | State argued sentencing valid or remand only if required | Snyder argued absence of required statutory findings renders sentence contrary to law | Held: Error; record lacks required findings—sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing with required findings if consecutive terms reimposed |
| Whether a written, signed jury waiver is required before accepting a no contest plea | State relied on precedent that written waiver unnecessary where plea eliminates trial | Snyder argued R.C. 2945.05 requires a written waiver before accepting no contest plea | Held: No written jury waiver required for no contest plea; precedent permits acceptance without separate written waiver |
| Whether typographical references to a "guilty" plea in the written plea form invalidated the no contest plea under Crim.R. 11 | State argued substantial compliance with Crim.R.11 and that the record shows Snyder knowingly entered no contest plea | Snyder argued the inconsistency showed lack of substantial compliance and prejudice | Held: Harmless/insubstantial error; defendant knowingly entered no contest plea—no prejudice shown; plea upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings when imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial-compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 warnings; defendant must show prejudice)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (clarifies substantial compliance test for Crim.R.11 admonitions)
- State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio, 75 Ohio St.3d 422 (1996) (no separate written jury-waiver requirement when defendant pleads guilty/no contest)
- State v. Aikens, 64 N.E.3d 371 (Ohio App. 2016) (failure to make specific consecutive-sentencing findings renders sentence contrary to law)