[Cite as State v. Renne, 2021-Ohio-2648.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 2020 CA 00036 JEFFREY S. RENNE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2020 CR 00288
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 30, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
R. KYLE WITT JAMES A. ANZELMO Fairfield County Prosecutor 446 Howland Drive Gahanna, Ohio 43230 BRIAN T. WALTZ Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 239 West Main Street, Suite #101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 2
Hoffman, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Jeffrey S. Renne appeals the judgment entered by the
Fairfield County Common Pleas Court convicting him of possession of cocaine (R.C.
2925.11(A),(C)(4)(a)), illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia (R.C.
2925.14(C)(1), (F)(1)), and petty theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(2)) following his pleas of
guilty, and sentencing him to twelve months incarceration, to be served consecutively to
the sentence imposed in a Franklin County case. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} Appellant was indicted by the Fairfield County Grand Jury on June 25, 2020,
with possession of cocaine, illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and petty
theft. On November 24, 2020, he entered guilty pleas to all counts of the indictment.
{¶3} After accepting Appellant’s guilty pleas and convicting Appellant as charged
in the indictment, the trial court proceeded directly to sentencing. The trial court noted,
“I’ve never seen a worse theft offense record in my entire life.” Tr. 26. Appellant
requested a community control sentence, stating he had mental health issues at the time
of the offenses due to the coronavirus pandemic, and had made strides in changing his
life based on his recent involvement with Integrated Services.
{¶4} Appellant was sentenced to twelve months incarceration for possession of
cocaine, 30 days in jail for illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and 75 days
in jail for petty theft, with all sentences to be served concurrently to each other and
consecutively to any sentence imposed in a pending Frankly County case.
1 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our resolution of this appeal. Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 3
{¶5} It is from the November 30, 2020 judgment of the Fairfield County Common
Pleas Court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED RENNE TO
PRISON, INSTEAD OF COMMUNITY CONTROL, IN VIOLATION OF HIS
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
II. THE TRIAL COURT UNLAWFULLY ORDERED RENNE TO
SERVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR HIS OFFENSES, IN
VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, GUARANTEED BY
SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE FIFTH
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
III. THE TRIAL COURT UNLAWFULLY SUBJECTED RENNE TO
POST-RELEASE CONTROL, IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS, GUARANTEED BY SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION AND THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
I.
{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
sentencing him to prison instead of community control because numerous factors
enumerated in R.C. 2929.12 mitigated against a prison sentence. Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 4
{¶7} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a
sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”
But an appellate court's determination the record does not support a sentence does not
equate to a determination the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law” as that term is used
in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). State v. Jones, 63 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169
N.E.3d 649, ¶,32. An appellate court may not modify or vacate a sentence based on its
view the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Id.
at ¶39.
{¶8} Based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion in Jones, supra, we find we do
not have statutory authority to modify or vacate Appellant’s sentence based on his
argument R.C. 2929.12 mitigated against a prison sentence. Accordingly, Appellant’s
first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶9} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the record does not
support the trial court’s findings concerning consecutive sentences.2
{¶10} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:
(C)(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for
convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve
the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service
is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender
2 The State argues this assignment of error is moot because Appellant did not receive a prison sentence in the Franklin County case to which the sentence in this case was imposed consecutively. However, the State’s claim concerning the Franklin County sentence is not in the record before this Court on appeal. Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 5
and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness
of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,
and if the court also finds 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.
{¶11} Our standard of review of sentencing is set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2):
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 Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 6
and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The
appellate court's standard for 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Renne, 2021-Ohio-2648.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 2020 CA 00036 JEFFREY S. RENNE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2020 CR 00288
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 30, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
R. KYLE WITT JAMES A. ANZELMO Fairfield County Prosecutor 446 Howland Drive Gahanna, Ohio 43230 BRIAN T. WALTZ Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 239 West Main Street, Suite #101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 2
Hoffman, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Jeffrey S. Renne appeals the judgment entered by the
Fairfield County Common Pleas Court convicting him of possession of cocaine (R.C.
2925.11(A),(C)(4)(a)), illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia (R.C.
2925.14(C)(1), (F)(1)), and petty theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(2)) following his pleas of
guilty, and sentencing him to twelve months incarceration, to be served consecutively to
the sentence imposed in a Franklin County case. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} Appellant was indicted by the Fairfield County Grand Jury on June 25, 2020,
with possession of cocaine, illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and petty
theft. On November 24, 2020, he entered guilty pleas to all counts of the indictment.
{¶3} After accepting Appellant’s guilty pleas and convicting Appellant as charged
in the indictment, the trial court proceeded directly to sentencing. The trial court noted,
“I’ve never seen a worse theft offense record in my entire life.” Tr. 26. Appellant
requested a community control sentence, stating he had mental health issues at the time
of the offenses due to the coronavirus pandemic, and had made strides in changing his
life based on his recent involvement with Integrated Services.
{¶4} Appellant was sentenced to twelve months incarceration for possession of
cocaine, 30 days in jail for illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and 75 days
in jail for petty theft, with all sentences to be served concurrently to each other and
consecutively to any sentence imposed in a pending Frankly County case.
1 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our resolution of this appeal. Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 3
{¶5} It is from the November 30, 2020 judgment of the Fairfield County Common
Pleas Court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED RENNE TO
PRISON, INSTEAD OF COMMUNITY CONTROL, IN VIOLATION OF HIS
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
II. THE TRIAL COURT UNLAWFULLY ORDERED RENNE TO
SERVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR HIS OFFENSES, IN
VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, GUARANTEED BY
SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE FIFTH
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
III. THE TRIAL COURT UNLAWFULLY SUBJECTED RENNE TO
POST-RELEASE CONTROL, IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS, GUARANTEED BY SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION AND THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
I.
{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
sentencing him to prison instead of community control because numerous factors
enumerated in R.C. 2929.12 mitigated against a prison sentence. Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 4
{¶7} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a
sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”
But an appellate court's determination the record does not support a sentence does not
equate to a determination the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law” as that term is used
in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). State v. Jones, 63 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169
N.E.3d 649, ¶,32. An appellate court may not modify or vacate a sentence based on its
view the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Id.
at ¶39.
{¶8} Based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion in Jones, supra, we find we do
not have statutory authority to modify or vacate Appellant’s sentence based on his
argument R.C. 2929.12 mitigated against a prison sentence. Accordingly, Appellant’s
first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶9} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the record does not
support the trial court’s findings concerning consecutive sentences.2
{¶10} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:
(C)(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for
convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve
the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service
is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender
2 The State argues this assignment of error is moot because Appellant did not receive a prison sentence in the Franklin County case to which the sentence in this case was imposed consecutively. However, the State’s claim concerning the Franklin County sentence is not in the record before this Court on appeal. Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 5
and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness
of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,
and if the court also finds 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.
{¶11} Our standard of review of sentencing is set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2):
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 Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 6
and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The
appellate court's standard for 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.
{¶12} The trial court found consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the
public from future crime or to punish Appellant, and consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of Appellant’s misconduct and the danger this
misconduct poses to Appellant and the public. The trial court further found the offenses
were committed as more than one course of conduct and the harm caused by the multiple
offenses is so great or unusual no single prison term adequately reflects the seriousness
of the misconduct.
{¶13} The trial court stated at the plea and sentencing hearing:
THE COURT: Okay. Who’s the victim? The victim is every single
retail establishment that you walk into. It’s also you victimizing yourself with
drugs. It’s also society. Every time you steal something, it costs taxpayers Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 7
– it costs individuals that walk into these stores an extra fee because of all
the crap that’s successfully stolen from a store….
I’ve never seen a worse theft offense record in my entire life. I’ve
been on the bench now for 17 years. It’s the worst theft-related criminal
record I’ve ever seen. By far, I’ve never seen one even close that was as
bad as yours is. You have been victimizing establishments for 25 years
plus…
It’s a low level felony, but holy smokes, getting 70 prior theft-related
misdemeanor cases and 30 prior – well, inclusive of this one – felony theft-
related offenses.
The Court today – I’ve heard your argument Mr. Renne. It’s too little
too late. With this kind of a record, you know what, I’m just going to protect
the public from you, period.
{¶14} Tr. 25-28.
{¶15} Appellant’s prior offense record encompassed twelve pages of the
presentence investigation, and dated back to 1985, including numerous misdemeanor
and theft offenses, drug-related and OVI convictions. We find the trial court did not err in
determining consecutive sentences were appropriate in the instant case.
{¶16} The second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶17} In his third assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
failing to orally advise him of post-release control during the sentencing hearing. Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00036 8
{¶18} The trial court in the instant case advised Appellant of post-release control
during the guilty plea portion of the hearing. There were no breaks in the hearing, and
the trial court proceeded immediately to sentencing after Appellant signed the plea form.
Tr. 16. When the trial court provides proper post-release control notification before
accepting the defendant's guilty plea and then proceeds immediately to sentencing, the
plea hearing and the sentencing hearing cannot, for purposes of the post-release control
statutes, reasonably be deemed to have been conducted separately. State v. Dardinger,
1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160467, 2017-Ohio-1525, ¶ 13; State v. Russell, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 16AP–108, 2016-Ohio-3349, ¶9. We find Appellant was properly notified of
post-release control in the combined plea and sentencing hearing in the instant case.
{¶19} The third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶20} The judgment of the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J. Baldwin, P.J. and Wise, Earle, J. concur