State v. Rahe

2026 Ohio 59

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 9, 2026
• Docket: WD-25-023
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rahe, 2026-Ohio-59.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-25-023

Appellee Trial Court No. 2024CR0375

v.

Brett L. Rahe DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: January 9, 2026

*****

SULEK, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Brett L. Rahe, appeals a judgment of the Wood County Court of

Common Pleas which, following his guilty plea to domestic violence, sentenced him to

17 months of incarceration. This court, sua sponte, places the matter on the accelerated

calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1(A), and this judgment entry is not an opinion of this court. See S.Ct.R.Op.3.1; App.R. 11.1(E); 6th Dist. Loc.App.R. 12. For the following

reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

{¶ 2} Rahe sets forth one assignment of error on appeal:

Assignment of Error No. 1: The trial court failed to comply with the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 and appellant’s sentence should be vacated.

{¶ 3} In his sole assignment of error, Rahe claims that at sentencing the trial court

“did not advance the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11 and did not appropriately

apply and weigh the seriousness and recidivism factors as outlined in R.C. 2929.12.”

{¶ 4} As this court recently set forth in State v. Pringle, 2025-Ohio-5305, ¶ 4 (6th

Dist.):

We cannot review appellant’s arguments concerning R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. For nearly five years, we have abided by the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, that we are prohibited, as a matter of law, from reviewing whether a trial court erred in its consideration of the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when it imposed sentence. State v. Bowles, 2021-Ohio-4401, ¶ 9 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Toles, 2021-Ohio-3531 (appeals based solely on a trial court’s alleged error in considering R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are “subject to summary resolution as a matter of law”). Appellant’s assigned error falls squarely within this prohibition.

{¶ 5} Here, as in Pringle, this court is prohibited, as a matter of law, from

reviewing Rahe’s contention that the trial court erred when considering R.C. 2929.11 and

2929.12. Accordingly, Rahe’s assignment of error is not well-taken.

2. {¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, the April 4, 2025 judgment of the Wood County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Rahe is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal

pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgement affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE

Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE

Charles E. Sulek, J. CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

3.