[Cite as State v. Hubert,
2025-Ohio-4991.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2025-A-0010
2025-A-0011
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeals from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
SHANNON JOSHUA HUBERT,
Trial Court Nos. 2024 CR 00516
Defendant-Appellant. 2024 CR 00520
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: November 3, 2025
Judgment: Affirmed
April R. Grabman, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Dane R. Hixon, Assistant
Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Margaret Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender, Tina M. Scibona and Phillip L.
Heasley, Assistant Public Defenders, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047
(For Defendant-Appellant).
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Shannon Joshua Hubert, appeals the judgments of the
Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to an aggregate prison term
of 27 months for Attempted Robbery and two counts of Vandalism following his guilty
pleas.
{¶2} Appellant raises a single assignment of error, arguing that the trial court’s
sentence is contrary to law.
{¶3} Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, we find that Appellant’s
assignment of error is without merit. The trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences
is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The trial court made the findings mandated
by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporated its findings into the
sentencing entry. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶4} On November 21, 2024, the Ashtabula County Grand Jury indicted
Appellant in Case No. 2024 CR 00516 on three counts: Robbery, a third-degree felony in
violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(3) and (B) (Count 1); Grant Theft of a Motor Vehicle, a fourth-
degree felony in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(5) (Count 2); and Domestic
Violence, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(2) (Count
3). On the same date, the grand jury also indicted Appellant in Case No. 2024 CR 00520
on two counts of Vandalism, fifth-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2909.05(B)(2) and
(E) (Counts 1 and 2).
{¶5} On November 26, 2024, Appellant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and
was appointed counsel.
{¶6} On December 12, 2024, Appellant filed a Motion to Determine Competency
and Plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. The trial court filed a judgment entry
ordering the Forensic Psychiatric Center of Northeast Ohio, Inc. to examine Appellant.
The Center examined Appellant and issued reports opining that Appellant understood the
nature and objectives of the proceedings against him, was competent to stand trial and
knew the wrongfulness of his acts at the time of the alleged offenses.
PAGE 2 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
{¶7} On January 28, 2025, the trial court held a competency and plea hearing.
The parties stipulated to the findings in the Center’s reports. The trial court issued findings
consistent with the Center’s opinions.
{¶8} The parties also notified the trial court that they had entered into written plea
agreements in both cases. In Case No. 2024 CR 00516, Appellant agreed to plead guilty
to Amended Count 1, Attempted Robbery, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2923.02 and 2911.02(A)(3), and Count 2, Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle, as originally
charged. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss Count 3, Domestic Violence. In Case
No. 2024 CR 00520, Appellant agreed to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 2, Vandalism, as
originally charged.
{¶9} The trial court engaged in a colloquy with Appellant pursuant to Crim.R. 11.
Following the colloquy, Appellant and the State provided factual bases for the offenses in
each of the cases. The offenses in Case No. 2024 CR 00516 occurred on October 4,
2024. According to Appellant, he suffers from bipolar disorder with mania, and he had
not taken his medication for approximately two months. Appellant’s girlfriend reported to
police that Appellant blocked her vehicle with his body, took her car keys by force, and
drove away without permission. The offenses in Case No. 2024 CR 00520 occurred on
October 7 and 8, 2024. While being held in custody in the Ashtabula City Jail, Appellant
“sabotaged” the jail’s computer system by unplugging an internet cable and flooded his
cell.
{¶10} Following the explanations, Appellant entered guilty pleas to the four
offenses. The trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty pleas and found him guilty. The court
ordered a presentence investigation and set the matter for sentencing.
PAGE 3 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
{¶11} On February 25, 2025, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. In Case
No. 2024 CR 00516, the parties agreed that the two counts merged for purposes of
sentencing, and the State elected to proceed on Amended Count 1, Attempted Robbery.
{¶12} Defense counsel requested that Appellant be sentenced to community
control, noting that Appellant had been in custody since his arrest. Defense counsel
stated that Appellant has mental health concerns and was not able to obtain his sleep
medication while in jail. Defense counsel also stated that Appellant receives counseling,
has scheduled future mental health treatment, and has a job waiting for him upon release.
Alternatively, if the trial court deemed additional incarceration to be necessary, defense
counsel requested that the court impose concurrent jail or prison terms.
{¶13} Appellant stated that it was an unfortunate situation. He explained that the
problem of having bipolar disorder with mania is that one believes he does not need
medication when he is doing well. He also stated that his girlfriend was losing her house
and car without his financial assistance.
{¶14} The State argued that Appellant was not amenable to community control in
either case because of his “atrocious and extensive” criminal history. The State also
argued that an aggravating factor for the Vandalism offenses was that they occurred in
the Ashtabula City Jail. The State requested consecutive prison sentences of 17 months
in Case No. 2024 CR 00516 and 22 months in Case No. 2024 CR 00520, for an aggregate
prison term of 39 months.
{¶15} In announcing Appellant’s sentence, the trial court stated as follows:
The Court’s reviewed the presentence investigation reports here in
both of these cases. They’re extensive documents. They provide the Court
with much information here about you, Mr. Hubert. The Court is familiar
with the facts that led to the offenses charged here in these two cases.
PAGE 4 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
Also, the Court reviewed the defendant’s prior criminal record as
well. The past convictions here are all listed and the Court reviewed those
specifically here in its review of the presentence investigation report.
The Court’s considered the purposes and principles of the
sentencing statutes, as the overriding purposes are to punish the offenders
and to protect the public from future crime. The Court's considered both
recidivism and seriousness factors as well. As it relates here to those
factors it does appear, Mr. Hubert, that you do have a substantial prior
criminal record, a history of criminal convictions at the adult level. And it
includes multiple prior convictions. You have been sentenced more than
once to prison previously. You’re aware of that.
It’s concerning because you have not been law abiding for several
years. You have not responded favorably to sanctions previously imposed
by the adult court and you continue to commit crime over the years. There’s
at least one probation violation listed here.
Also, the Court listened to your statement here in court regarding
remorse for these offenses. And the Court listened to your statement and
your explanation here. These are four separate offenses, at least they were
and now there’s three, because the two counts in the one case merged. So
you have one count in that case and then two counts of vandalism in the
other. And there are victims that are involved here in these cases.
The Court’s heard arguments by both sides. The Court finds that
community control would demean the seriousness of the conduct in these
cases and its impact upon the victims and would not adequately protect the
public. Therefore, a sentence of imprisonment is comm[en]s[u]rate with the
seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and a prison sentence does not
place an unnecessary burden on the State.
{¶16} In Case No. 2024 CR 00516, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 17
months in prison. In Case No. 2024 CR 00520, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 10
months in prison on each of the two counts. The trial court ordered the latter sentences
to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to the sentence in Case No. 2024 CR
00516, for an aggregate prison term of 27 months. The trial court made the following
consecutive-sentence findings:
PAGE 5 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
The Court’s decided that you shall serve prison terms consecutively,
that’s pursuant to Revised Code 2929.14 and that consecutive sentences
are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the
defendant and that consecutive sentences will not be disproportionate to
the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and to the danger the defendant
poses to the public.
The Court further finds that the defendant’s history of criminal
conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect
the public from future crime by the defendant, based upon the Court’s
specific review of the defendant’s past criminal convictions, having been to
prison in the past and not been law abiding for some years.
{¶17} On February 26, 2025, the trial court filed the sentencing entries. The trial
court’s consecutive-sentence findings appear in the entry for Case No. 2024 CR 00520.
{¶18} On March 7, 2025, Appellant timely appealed both judgments. This Court
sua sponte consolidated Appellant’s appeals.
Assignment of Error and Analysis
{¶19} Appellant raises the following assignment of error: “The trial court court’s
sentence must be reversed and remanded as contrary to law.”
{¶20} Appellant argues that his sentence is contrary to law for three reasons.
First, he argues that the trial court provided “a mere rote recitation of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)”
and did not “mention a single detail of [Appellant’s] criminal history.” Appellant cites State
v. Miller, 2019-Ohio-2290 (11th Dist.), as purportedly being a case in which this Court
found that the trial court’s “detailed findings” satisfied R.C. 2929.12. Second, Appellant
argues that “there is no indication in the record” that the trial court “paid any attention
whatsoever to the details” of Appellant’s or defense counsel’s statements in mitigation,
other than the court indicating that it listened to Appellant’s statement. Third, Appellant
argues that the trial court misstated R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) by finding that consecutive
sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish him
PAGE 6 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
because the statute is worded in the alternative. According to Appellant, the court’s
alleged misstatement “reflects an overemphasis on punishment” instead of “public
protection.”
{¶21} Appellate review of felony sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2),
which provides:
The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section
shall review the record, including the findings 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 of 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.
{¶22} “Contrary to law” means “‘in violation of statute or legal regulations at a
given time.’” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 34, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th
Ed. 1990). “Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is
more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty
as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in
the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be
established.” Cross v. Ledford,
161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶23} Appellant’s arguments challenge the trial court’s imposition of consecutive
sentences. “Ohio law presumes that a defendant convicted of multiple crimes will serve
PAGE 7 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
his sentences concurrently.” State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶ 38; R.C. 2929.41(A). “A
court may impose consecutive sentences only when some law specifically permits it to
do so,” and “R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) is one such law.”
Glover at ¶ 38.
Under R.C. 2929.14(C), a court must engage in a three-step analysis before
it may impose consecutive sentences. First, it must find that consecutive
sentences are ‘necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish
the offender.’ Id. Second, the court must find that ‘consecutive sentences
are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to
the danger the offender poses to the public.’ Id. Finally, the court must find
‘any of the following’:
(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 post-release 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.
Glover at ¶ 38, quoting R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
{¶24} In this case, the trial court found subsection (c) to be applicable.
{¶25} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[i]n order to impose consecutive
terms of imprisonment, a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing
entry, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings.” State v. Bonnell,
2014-Ohio-3177, syllabus. Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the trial court
was not required to make “detailed findings” regarding Appellant’s criminal history or his
PAGE 8 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
mitigation arguments. In addition, while Appellant references R.C. 2929.12, that statute
applies only to individual sentences, not consecutive sentences. State v. Gwynne, 2019-
Ohio-4761, ¶ 17 (plurality opinion).
{¶26} We also find no misstatement of the law in the trial court’s finding that
“consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to
punish the defendant.” (Emphasis added.) Appellant is correct that R.C. 2929.14(C) is
written in the alternative. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “a word-for-
word recitation of the language of the statute is not required, . . . as long as the reviewing
court can discern that the trial court engaged in the correct analysis . . . .” Bonnell at ¶
29. The fact that the trial court found both circumstances to be applicable does not render
Appellant’s sentence contrary to law. Rather, the trial court made an additional finding
that was not legally required.
{¶27} Finally, whether consecutive sentences in this case “reflect[] an
overemphasis on punishment” instead of “public protection” is beyond our limited scope
of review. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) “does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its
view of an appropriate sentence for that of the trial court.” Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, at ¶
44. “An appellate court’s inquiry is limited to a review of the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)
findings.”
Id. “Only when the court of appeals concludes that the record clearly and
convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings or it clearly and convincingly finds
that the sentence is contrary to law is it permitted to modify the trial court’s sentence.”
Id.
As explained above, Appellant’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law,
and he does not challenge the support in the record for the trial court’s findings.
Therefore, we have no legal basis to disturb Appellant’s consecutive sentences.
PAGE 9 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
{¶28} Accordingly, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶29} For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas are affirmed.
ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
PAGE 10 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, Appellant’s assignment of error
is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgments of the
Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against Appellant.
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND
PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON,
concurs
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,
concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 11 OF 11
Case Nos. 2025-A-0010, 2025-A-0011
