[Cite as State v. Renne, 2025-Ohio-5809.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2025 CA 00055
Plaintiff – Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
Appeal from the Licking County Court of -vs- Common Pleas, Case No. 2025-CR- 00091
JEFFREY RENNE Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry:December 30, 2025
BEFORE: WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN, P.J, KEVIN W. POPHAM, J., DAVID M. GORMLEY, J., Appellate Judges
APPEARANCES: KENNETH W. OSWALT for Plaintiff-Appellee; CHRIS BRIGDON, for Defendant-Appellant
OPINION
Popham, J.
{¶1} Appellant Jeffrey Renne appeals the judgment entered by the Licking
County Court of Common Pleas convicting and sentencing him following his pleas of
guilty. Appellee is the State of Ohio. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} The following facts are adduced from the change-of-plea and sentencing
hearings held on July 16, 2025.
{¶3} On six different occasions from January 22, 2025, through February 12,
2025, Renne stole merchandise (cases of beer and candy) from the Sheetz gas station located at 10250 National Road in Licking County, Ohio. The total aggregate amount for
all the items stolen during the thefts was $1,426.46.
{¶4} On February 6, 2025, Renne and an accomplice stole merchandise worth
$989.85 from the Home Depot in Newark, Ohio. On February 12, 2025, Renne and an
accomplice stole beer worth $143.94 from the Sheetz located at 815 North 21st Street in
Licking County, Ohio. Also on February 12, 2025, Renne and an accomplice stole beer
worth $143.89 from the Sheetz located at 750 Hebron Road in Licking County, Ohio.
Surveillance video captured Renne committing the crimes.
{¶5} After advising Renne of his Miranda rights, detectives interviewed Renne,
who admitted to stealing from the gas stations. He stated he steals beer because it is
located by the exit door, and he can easily resell beer. Renne admitted he recruits drivers
and pays them half of the proceeds from the beer. Renne told the detectives his GPS
would confirm he has traveled to “thousands” of stores throughout Central Ohio to steal
beer. Renne also admitted to stealing from Home Depot. Renne informed detectives he
would continue to steal to make money, and that he has engaged in this type of “retail
theft” for over thirty years.
{¶6} Pursuant to R.C. 2913.61, the series of theft offenses were aggregated into
a single count of theft. The indictment for one count of theft, a felony of the fifth degree,
was filed on February 20, 2025. A charge of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity was
added via a superseding indictment; however, the charge was later dismissed by the
State.
{¶7} On July 16, 2025, Renne pled guilty to one count of theft. The parties jointly
recommended a ten-month prison sentence, to be served locally, because Licking County is a T-CAP county allowing for a prison sentence on a fifth-degree felony to be served at
the county jail1. At a sentencing hearing held immediately after the plea hearing, the trial
court sentenced appellant to twelve months in prison.
{¶8} In a July 16, 2025, judgment entry, the trial court stated it considered the
purposes and principles contained in R.C. 2929.11, and the balance of seriousness and
recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.
{¶9} Renne appeals from the July 16, 2025, judgment entry of the Licking County
Court of Common Pleas, and assigns the following as error:
{¶10} “I. THE MINIMUM SANCTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE OF R.C.
2929.11 WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE SENTENCE APPELLANT RECEIVED.”
I.
{¶11} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.
2953.08. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002. R.C. 2953.08 provides we may either
increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for sentencing where we
clearly and convincingly find either the record does not support the sentencing court’s
findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or R.C. 2929.20(I),
or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Id.
{¶12} Nothing in R.C. 2953.08 permits this Court to independently weigh the
evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to
determine a sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.
2929.12. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729. Instead, we may only determine if the
1 Ohio’s Targeted Community Alternatives to Prison (“T-CAP”) program provides state funding to
counties to manage low-level, nonviolent felony offenders locally instead of sending these offenders to overcrowded state prisons. R.C. 2929.34 and 5149.38 sentence is contrary to law. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law
where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as
the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post-release control, and sentences
the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512,
¶ 16 (5th Dist.).
{¶13} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes
and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and
recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Taylor, 2024-Ohio-238 (5th Dist.).
{¶14} “The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from
future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the
effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court
determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state
or local government resources.” R.C. 2929.11(A). In order to achieve these purposes,
“the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the
offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution
to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.” Id. Further, the sentence imposed shall
be “commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct
and its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by
similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶15} R.C. 2929.12 lists general factors which must be considered by the trial
court in determining the sentence to be imposed for a felony, and gives detailed criteria
which do not control the court’s discretion, but which must be considered for or against
severity or leniency in a particular case. The trial court retains discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with the purpose and principles of sentencing as set forth in
R.C. 2929.11. R.C. 2929.12.
{¶16} In this case, the judgment entry states the trial court considered the
principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the seriousness
and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. Further, the sentence imposed by the trial
court is within the statutory guidelines.
{¶17} Renne argues the minimum sanctions to achieve the purpose of R.C.
2929.11 contradicted the sentence imposed and that the trial court failed to adequately
consider mitigating factors, such as the lack of physical or psychological harm to the
victims, the fact that the value of the merchandise was less than $2,500, and Renne’s
willingness to pursue treatment for mental health and addiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Renne, 2025-Ohio-5809.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2025 CA 00055
Plaintiff – Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
Appeal from the Licking County Court of -vs- Common Pleas, Case No. 2025-CR- 00091
JEFFREY RENNE Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry:December 30, 2025
BEFORE: WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN, P.J, KEVIN W. POPHAM, J., DAVID M. GORMLEY, J., Appellate Judges
APPEARANCES: KENNETH W. OSWALT for Plaintiff-Appellee; CHRIS BRIGDON, for Defendant-Appellant
OPINION
Popham, J.
{¶1} Appellant Jeffrey Renne appeals the judgment entered by the Licking
County Court of Common Pleas convicting and sentencing him following his pleas of
guilty. Appellee is the State of Ohio. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} The following facts are adduced from the change-of-plea and sentencing
hearings held on July 16, 2025.
{¶3} On six different occasions from January 22, 2025, through February 12,
2025, Renne stole merchandise (cases of beer and candy) from the Sheetz gas station located at 10250 National Road in Licking County, Ohio. The total aggregate amount for
all the items stolen during the thefts was $1,426.46.
{¶4} On February 6, 2025, Renne and an accomplice stole merchandise worth
$989.85 from the Home Depot in Newark, Ohio. On February 12, 2025, Renne and an
accomplice stole beer worth $143.94 from the Sheetz located at 815 North 21st Street in
Licking County, Ohio. Also on February 12, 2025, Renne and an accomplice stole beer
worth $143.89 from the Sheetz located at 750 Hebron Road in Licking County, Ohio.
Surveillance video captured Renne committing the crimes.
{¶5} After advising Renne of his Miranda rights, detectives interviewed Renne,
who admitted to stealing from the gas stations. He stated he steals beer because it is
located by the exit door, and he can easily resell beer. Renne admitted he recruits drivers
and pays them half of the proceeds from the beer. Renne told the detectives his GPS
would confirm he has traveled to “thousands” of stores throughout Central Ohio to steal
beer. Renne also admitted to stealing from Home Depot. Renne informed detectives he
would continue to steal to make money, and that he has engaged in this type of “retail
theft” for over thirty years.
{¶6} Pursuant to R.C. 2913.61, the series of theft offenses were aggregated into
a single count of theft. The indictment for one count of theft, a felony of the fifth degree,
was filed on February 20, 2025. A charge of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity was
added via a superseding indictment; however, the charge was later dismissed by the
State.
{¶7} On July 16, 2025, Renne pled guilty to one count of theft. The parties jointly
recommended a ten-month prison sentence, to be served locally, because Licking County is a T-CAP county allowing for a prison sentence on a fifth-degree felony to be served at
the county jail1. At a sentencing hearing held immediately after the plea hearing, the trial
court sentenced appellant to twelve months in prison.
{¶8} In a July 16, 2025, judgment entry, the trial court stated it considered the
purposes and principles contained in R.C. 2929.11, and the balance of seriousness and
recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.
{¶9} Renne appeals from the July 16, 2025, judgment entry of the Licking County
Court of Common Pleas, and assigns the following as error:
{¶10} “I. THE MINIMUM SANCTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE OF R.C.
2929.11 WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE SENTENCE APPELLANT RECEIVED.”
I.
{¶11} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.
2953.08. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002. R.C. 2953.08 provides we may either
increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for sentencing where we
clearly and convincingly find either the record does not support the sentencing court’s
findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or R.C. 2929.20(I),
or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Id.
{¶12} Nothing in R.C. 2953.08 permits this Court to independently weigh the
evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to
determine a sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.
2929.12. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729. Instead, we may only determine if the
1 Ohio’s Targeted Community Alternatives to Prison (“T-CAP”) program provides state funding to
counties to manage low-level, nonviolent felony offenders locally instead of sending these offenders to overcrowded state prisons. R.C. 2929.34 and 5149.38 sentence is contrary to law. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law
where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as
the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post-release control, and sentences
the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512,
¶ 16 (5th Dist.).
{¶13} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes
and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and
recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Taylor, 2024-Ohio-238 (5th Dist.).
{¶14} “The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from
future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the
effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court
determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state
or local government resources.” R.C. 2929.11(A). In order to achieve these purposes,
“the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the
offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution
to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.” Id. Further, the sentence imposed shall
be “commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct
and its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by
similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶15} R.C. 2929.12 lists general factors which must be considered by the trial
court in determining the sentence to be imposed for a felony, and gives detailed criteria
which do not control the court’s discretion, but which must be considered for or against
severity or leniency in a particular case. The trial court retains discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with the purpose and principles of sentencing as set forth in
R.C. 2929.11. R.C. 2929.12.
{¶16} In this case, the judgment entry states the trial court considered the
principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the seriousness
and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. Further, the sentence imposed by the trial
court is within the statutory guidelines.
{¶17} Renne argues the minimum sanctions to achieve the purpose of R.C.
2929.11 contradicted the sentence imposed and that the trial court failed to adequately
consider mitigating factors, such as the lack of physical or psychological harm to the
victims, the fact that the value of the merchandise was less than $2,500, and Renne’s
willingness to pursue treatment for mental health and addiction.
{¶18} While Renne may disagree with the weight given to the R.C. 2929.11 and
R.C. 2929.12 factors by the trial judge, we have no basis for concluding the sentence in
the instant case is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The record demonstrates the
trial court received and reviewed the presentence investigation report, and heard
statements from the prosecutor, defense counsel, and Renne himself.
{¶19} In addition, at the sentencing hearing, Renee admitted that he had engaged
in “retail theft” for decades, and planned to continue doing so in order to make money.
Further, the PSI demonstrates that Renne has a lengthy criminal history. His first
conviction for theft occurred in 1992, and he had convictions for theft or forgery almost
every year after. He frequently had multiple convictions for theft or forgery each year.
Additionally, Renne was convicted of possession of drugs in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001,
2003, 2005, and 2007. Renne spent time in prison or was locally incarcerated in 1992- 1993, 1994, 1995-1997, 1998, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2002-2003, 2003-2005, 2006-
2007, 2008-2010, 2011-2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and
2023. In addition, Renne was placed on either community control or probation numerous
times, and was unsuccessfully terminated from community control and/or probation
multiple times. Essentially, as soon as Renne was released from either prison or local
incarceration, he would be convicted of another theft or forgery offense, and this pattern
has continued for decades.
{¶20} Renne also contends his sentence is disproportionate because it differed
from the joint sentencing recommendation of ten months in prison. However, it is well
settled that “[t]rial courts may reject plea agreements and that they are not bound by a
jointly recommended sentence.” State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 29; State v.
Marshall, 2025-Ohio-3291, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.). Thus, the trial court was not obligated to
follow the recommendation.
{¶21} We conclude the trial court did not commit error when it sentenced Renne.
Upon review, we find the trial court’s sentencing complies with applicable rules and
sentencing statutes. Renne’s assignment of error is overruled. For the reasons stated in our Opinion, the judgment of the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
Costs to Appellant.
By: Popham, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Gormley, J., concur