A former coach at a Putnam County school will have his consecutive sentences for sex-related charges re-examined after a ruling by the Third District Court of Appeals.

In a unanimous decision issued on April 14, the three-judge appeals panel overruled all but one of Jeremy Stober’s nine claims that errors were made in his 2013 trial for gross sexual imposition, sexual battery, and importuning for charges related to incidents with former students at Kalida High School.

However, Judge Stephen Shaw wrote in the opinion that based on Ohio law, the trial judge made only two of the three findings needed before imposing consecutive sentences against Stober.

“Despite utilizing some of the language of subsection (b), the trial court still did not make any finding as to whether ‘[a]t least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct[.]’,” Judge Shaw wrote. “In this case, we are mindful of the fact that it seems obvious that there are multiple courses of conduct and multiple victims. Nevertheless, in State v. Farnsworth, supra, the 7th District Court of Appeals held that where the trial court made only two of the three required findings, reversal was warranted for resentencing.”

Judges John Williamowski and Vernon Preston joined the opinion, which ordered that Stober’s case should be sent back to the Putnam County Court of Common Pleas for resentencing to consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate.

In addition to his 10 ½ year prison sentence, the former IT teacher and girls volleyball coach was also classified as a sex offender.

State v. Stober, 2014-Ohio-1568
Opinion: http://sc.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/3/2014/2014-ohio-1568.pdf
Criminal Appeal From: Putnam County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 14, 2014

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.