[Cite as State v. Jeanneret, 2024-Ohio-2612.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

LOGAN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-23-24

 v.

STEVEN T. JEANNERET, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

STATE OF OHIO,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-23-25

 v.

STEVEN T. JEANNERET, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeals from Logan County Common Pleas Court

Criminal Division

Trial Court Nos. CR21 07 0187 and CR22 12 0284

Judgments Affirmed

Date of Decision: July 8, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Alison Boggs for Appellant

Eric C. Stewart for Appellee 
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-2-

WALDICK, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Steven T. Jeanneret (“Jeanneret”), brings these

appeals from the September 22, 2023 judgments of the Logan County Common 

Pleas Court. On appeal, Jeanneret argues that the trial court erred by imposing 

maximum prison terms on multiple counts in two separate trial court cases, and that 

the trial court erred by ordering some of the prison terms to be served consecutively. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Background

{¶2} On July 13, 2021, Jeanneret was indicted in trial court case CR-21-07-

0187 for Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), a fifth degree 

felony (Count 1); Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), a fifth 

degree felony (Count 2); Tampering with Evidence in violation of R.C. 

2921.12(A)(1), a third degree felony (Count 3); Aggravated Possession of Drugs in 

violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth degree felony (Count 4); and Possession of a 

Fentanyl-Related Compound in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth degree felony

(Count 5).

{¶3} On November 24, 2021, Jeanneret entered into a written negotiated plea 

agreement wherein he agreed to plead guilty to Counts 1, 2, and 4 of the indictment. 

In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss Count 3, the most serious charge, and Count 
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-3-

5. The trial court held a Crim.R. 11 hearing and determined that Jeanneret was 

entering knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas. 

{¶4} On January 27, 2022, Jeanneret was sentenced to serve five years of 

community control. The trial court reserved a twelve month prison term on each 

count in the event that Jeanneret violated his community control. However, the trial 

court indicated that Counts 1 and 2 would merge for the purposes of sentencing. 

Nevertheless, the trial court indicated that in the event Jeanneret violated his 

community control, the trial court would impose consecutive prison terms on 

Counts 1 and 4.

{¶5} On June 13, 2022, a “show-cause” motion was filed alleging that

Jeanneret had violated his community control by failing to report for supervision. A 

hearing was held wherein Jeanneret admitted that he had not been in contact with 

his supervising officer for several months. Due to Jeanneret’s lengthy period of not 

reporting, the trial court determined that the violation was non-technical in nature.

{¶6} Prior to sentencing, Jeanneret’s probation officer noted that Jeanneret 

had seven prior felonies and he had been found with drugs in May of 2022.

Nevertheless, the trial court continued Jeanneret on community control, imposing 

stricter sanctions, indicating it would apply a “no-tolerance policy to any future 

violations.”
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-4-

{¶7} On December 14, 2022, Jeanneret was indicted in trial court case CR22-12-0284 for Possession of Cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth 

degree felony. The possession incident allegedly occurred in May of 2022.

{¶8} On February 13, 2023, a second “show-cause” motion was filed in trial 

court case CR-21-07-0187 alleging that Jeanneret had failed to comply with his 

drug-testing. The matter proceeded to a final hearing wherein Jeanneret again 

admitted he was in violation of his community control. The trial court determined 

that he had violated his community control, but again did not revoke his community 

control

{¶9} On May 30, 2023, Jeanneret entered a guilty plea to the Possession of 

Cocaine charge in trial court case CR-22-12-0284. In exchange for his plea, the State 

agreed to remain silent at sentencing. Jeanneret’s plea was accepted, he was found 

guilty, and at a later date he was sentenced to three years of community control, 

with a twelve-month prison term reserved. The trial court noted that, if imposed, the 

reserved prison term would be served consecutive to any prison term imposed in 

trial court case CR-21-07-0187.

{¶10} On August 28, 2023, “show-cause” motions were filed in both trial 

court cases alleging that Jeanneret had violated his community control. It was 

alleged he had operated a vehicle without a license, that he refused to submit to a 

drug screen, and that he had contact with a known gang member. 
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-5-

{¶11} The matter proceeded to a final hearing on September 22, 2023, 

wherein Jeanneret admitted he had violated his community control by refusing a 

drug screen and by having contact with a known gang member. Jeanneret denied 

the issue regarding operating a vehicle without a license, which had apparently 

resulted in a new felony charge. After Jeanneret admitted violating his community 

control, the trial court revoked Jeanneret’s community control in both cases. The 

trial court imposed consecutive 12-month prison terms for Counts 1 and 4 in trial 

court case CR-21-07-0187, and a consecutive 12-month prison term for the 

Possession conviction in trial court case CR-22-12-0284. 

{¶12} Judgment entries memorializing Jeanneret’s sentences in both cases 

were filed September 22, 2023.1It is from these judgments that Jeanneret now 

appeals, asserting the following assignments of error for our review.

First Assignment of Error

The trial court erred when it imposed a maximum sentence in case 

number CR 22 12 0284.

Second Assignment of Error

The trial court’s sentences in both cases is contrary to law, as the 

court failed to properly balance the factors for maximum, 

consecutive [sentences] against the factors that weigh against 

maximum consecutive sentences.

1 Appeal number 8-23-24 corresponds to the later trial court case CR-22-12-0284. Appeal number 8-23-25 

corresponds to the earlier trial court case CR-21-07-0187.
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-6-

First Assignment of Error

{¶13} In his first assignment of error, Jeanneret argues that the trial court 

erred by imposing a maximum sentence on him in trial court case CR-22-12-0284.

Standard of Review

{¶14} An appellate court deciding an appeal based on felony sentencing 

“shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or 

modification given by the sentencing court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “The appellate 

court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under 

[R.C. 2953.08] or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing 

court for resentencing.” Id. However, the appellate court may take such action only 

“if it clearly and convincingly finds” either (a) in cases where the sentencing court 

made findings under R.C. 2929.13(B), R.C. 2929.13(D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e), 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or R.C. 2929.20(I) (only), “the record does not support the 

sentencing court’s findings under” that statutory subsection; or (b) “[t]hat the 

sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Id.

{¶15} Importantly, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) “does not provide a basis for an 

appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is 

not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 163 

Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39. “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 

are not among the statutory provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).” Id. at ¶ 28. 
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-7-

{¶16} Thus, an appellate court may reverse a sentence “only if it determines 

by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s 

findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” 

(Emphasis added.) State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 

N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is the measure or degree of proof 

that “‘will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to 

the facts sought to be established.’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio 

St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. 

Analysis

{¶17} “Trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence within the 

statutory range.” State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-15-17, 2015-Ohio-4225, ¶ 

9. “A sentence imposed within the statutory range is not contrary to law as long as 

the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing contained 

in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors contained in R.C. 2929.12.” Id.

{¶18} Here, in trial court case CR-22-12-0284, Jeanneret was sentenced to 

serve a twelve-month prison term after Jeanneret violated his community control. 

The prison term is within the appropriate statutory range for a fifth degree felony 

pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). In fashioning its sentence, the trial court explicitly 

stated on the record that it had considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. 
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-8-

{¶19} Because the sentence is within the statutory range, and the trial court 

fulfilled its obligations to consider the requisite statutory factors, Jeanneret’s

sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Collins, 3d Dist. 

Union No. 14-22-28, 2023-Ohio-3011, ¶ 14. According to the Supreme Court of 

Ohio, we may not independently “weigh the evidence in the record and substitute 

[our] judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects 

compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 

2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42. Because the maximum sentence was not contrary to law, any 

arguments Jeanneret makes in an attempt to undermine the trial court’s analysis 

under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are precluded by Jones.

2 Therefore, Jeanneret’s 

first assignment of error is overruled.

Second Assignment of Error

{¶20} In his second assignment of error, Jeanneret argues that the trial court 

erred by imposing maximum consecutive sentences in trial court case CR-21-07-

0187, and that the trial court erred by imposing a consecutive prison term for 

Jeanneret’s conviction in trial court case CR-22-12-0284.

2 Even if we could review the factors, in this case, when the trial court sentences Jeanneret, the trial court 

provided some analysis on the record, indicating that Jeanneret had, inter alia, a significant history of criminal 

convictions, and that he had failed to respond to prior sanctions. These findings are supported by the record. 

Thus while we are not permitted to reweigh the sentencing factors here, even if we could, the result would 

be the same. 
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-9-

Relevant Authority

{¶21} Revised Code 2929.14(C) governs the imposition of consecutive 

prison terms. It provides:

(4) * * * [T]he 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 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.

{¶22} Revised Code 2929.14(C)(4) requires a trial court to make specific 

findings on the record when imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Hites, 3d Dist. 

Hardin No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892, ¶ 11. Specifically, the trial court must find: 

(1) consecutive sentences are necessary to either protect the public or punish the 

offender; (2) the sentences would not be disproportionate to the offense committed; 

and (3) one of the factors in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c) applies. Id.
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-10-

{¶23} The trial court must state the required findings at the sentencing 

hearing prior to imposing consecutive sentences and incorporate those findings into 

its sentencing entry. State v. Sharp, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-01, 2014-Ohio4140, ¶ 50, citing State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. A 

trial court “has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings” and is not 

“required to give a talismanic incantation of the words of the statute, provided that 

the necessary findings can be found in the record and are incorporated into the 

sentencing entry.” Bonnell at ¶ 37.

Analysis

{¶24} In this case, the trial court made the requisite findings to impose 

consecutive sentences both at the sentencing hearing and in its final judgment entry. 

In fact, the trial court determined that both R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) and (c) supported 

consecutive sentences in this matter, even though only one subsection was required.

{¶25} The trial court’s findings that this case involved multiple courses of 

conduct (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b)), and that Jeanneret had a significant criminal 

history (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c)) are both supported by the record. Jeanneret had over 

half-a-dozen felonies and continued to commit crimes while he was on community 

control. In fact, Jeanneret was on post-release control when he was indicted in trial 

court case CR-21-07-0187. Further, these crimes were committed separately.
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-11-

{¶26} The trial court attempted repeatedly to provide Jeanneret with 

opportunities on community control, but each time Jeanneret returned to using drugs 

and committing crimes. Simply put, Jeanneret’s prison terms were within the 

appropriate statutory ranges, they were not contrary to law, and the trial court made 

the requisite (and supported) findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose 

consecutive sentences. Therefore, we do not find that his consecutive prison terms 

are clearly and contrary to law.

{¶27} Before concluding, we note that Jeanneret’s appellate counsel urges 

us to follow an obsolete case from the Supreme Court of Ohio—State v. Kalish, 120 

Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912. Counsel argues that Kalish is still “good law.” 

However, State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, explicitly 

rejected the Kalish standard after R.C. 2953.08(G) was amended. Marcum at ¶ 1, 

6-7; State v. Fitzgerald, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2023-CA-44, 2024-Ohio-1608, ¶ 27.

Furthermore, other policy arguments made by Jeanneret’s counsel in his brief about 

the scope of appellate review of sentences under R.C. 2953.08 are more properly 

directed to the State legislature.

{¶28} In sum, Jeanneret is unable to establish that his individual sentences 

or his consecutive sentences are clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Therefore, 

his second assignment of error is overruled.
Case No. 8-23-24 and 8-23-25

-12-

Conclusion

{¶29} Having found no error prejudicial to Jeanneret in the particulars 

assigned and argued, his assignments of error are overruled and the judgments of 

the Logan County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

Judgments Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J., and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.