State v. Replogle

[Cite as State v. Replogle, 2026-Ohio-3671.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-25-022, WM-25-023 Appellee Trial Court No. 24CR000124, 24CR000058 v. DECISION AND JUDGMENT Todd L. Replogle Decided: September 18, 2026 Appellant ***** Joseph A. Urenovitch, Esq., Williams County Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee. Michael H. Stahl, Esq., for appellant. ***** DUHART, J. {¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant, Todd L. Replogle, appeals the November 18, 2025 judgments of the Williams County Common Pleas Court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Background  {¶ 2} On September 9, 2024, Replogle was indicted in case No. 24CR000124 with: one count of rape, pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and (B), a felony of the first degree, with a sexually violent predator specification under R.C. 2941.148(A) (“SVP specification”) (Count 1); one count of gross sexual imposition, pursuant to R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) and (C)(2), a felony of the third degree, with a SVP specification (Count 2); two counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor or impaired person, pursuant to R.C. 2907.321(A)(3) and (C), a felonies of the second degree (Counts 3 and 4); 10 counts of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor or impaired person, pursuant to R.C. 2907.322(A)(1)(2) and (C), felonies of the second degree (Counts 5 - 14); 10 counts of illegal use of a minor or impaired person in nudity oriented material or performance, pursuant to R.C. 2907.323(A)(1) and (B), felonies of the second degree (Counts 15 - 24); 10 counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor or impaired person pursuant to R.C. 2907.321(A)(1)(2) and (C), felonies of the second degree (Counts 25 - 34); one count of trafficking in marihuana, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(3)(d), a felony of the third degree, with specifications for forfeiture of money in a drug case pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A) and forfeiture of an automobile in a drug case pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A)(Count 35); one count of possession of marihuana, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(3)(d), a felony of the third degree (Count 36); and, one count of having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(4) and (B), a felony of the third degree with a specification for forfeiture of a weapon pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A). Counts 5 and 15 also included a specification for the forfeiture of property pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A). Replogle entered not guilty pleas to all charges. On January 30, 2025, the State entered a nolle prosequi without prejudice to Counts 1 - 4 and their related specifications. 2.  {¶ 3} On May 28, 2025, a new indictment was filed against Replogle in case No. 25CR000058, alleging rape, pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and (B), a felony of the first degree, with an SVP specification (Count 1), and gross sexual imposition, pursuant to R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) and (C)(2), a felony of the third degree, also with an SVP specification. Replogle also entered not guilty pleas to these charges. {¶ 4} On October 9, 2025, a joint plea hearing was held at which the State amended Count 1 in case No. 25CR000058 to gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) and (C)(2), a felony of the third degree, and then Replogle pled guilty to Counts 5, 6 and 7 in case No. 24CR000124, and to Counts 1 and 2 in case No. 25CR000058. The State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts and specifications in case No. 24CR000124 at sentencing. {¶ 5} Replogle was sentenced in both cases on November 10, 2025. In case No. 24CR000124, he was sentenced to an indefinite term of six to nine years on each of the three counts. In case No. 25CR000058, Replogle was sentenced to five years for both counts. The trial court ordered that all terms be served consecutively, and made the following statement regarding the consecutive sentences: The court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary and a concurrent sentence does not adequately protect the public. Consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender. The consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offenders [sic] conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public. And the court further finds under Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.14(C)(4) at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, being hundreds to thousands of graphic photos 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 course of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offenders [sic] conduct. One image that underlies the seriousness is of a baby. An infant. And this has clearly occurred over a period of years. Further, there’s no remorse shown for the victims nor these children 3.  subject to sexual exploitation. Further, the nieces have suffered mental and physical and emotional harm. . . . An[] innumerous amount of other children subject [sic] to these crimes. Pursuant to the PSI, the nieces of [Replogle] tried to report in 2020. Their claims went unheard until the balance of those cases arose in 2023. And that is the basis the court finds that multiple offenses so committed was [sic] so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the course of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct. {¶ 6} Replogle appealed in both cases, and we consolidated them for purpose of appeal. He has raised this single assignment of error: The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without taking the aggregate length of the sentence into account. Standard of Review {¶ 7} We review felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and we “generally defer to trial courts on sentencing decisions.” State v. Polizzi, 2026-Ohio-2588, ¶ 17. This deference is reflected in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, but only if, inter alia, it finds that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See id., quoting State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶ 52 (lead opinion), quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Clear and convincing evidence is defined as “‘that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere “preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as is required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 14, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. 4.  {¶ 8} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) provides an exception to the general rule that prison terms shall be served concurrently and allows for a trial court to impose consecutive sentences when 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.” {¶ 9} A trial court imposing consecutive sentences must make these findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporate them into its sentencing entry but is not obligated to state reasons supporting its findings. State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, syllabus. Analysis {¶ 10} Here, the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences, and Replogle does not suggest otherwise. Instead, he contends that the trial court was required to take the aggregate length of his sentence into account and that, by failing to do so, the trial court “did not engage in a sufficient proportionality analysis.” 5.  {¶ 11} In plurality opinions, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) does not require an appellate court to consider the aggregate sentence to be imposed when reviewing the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings and we have followed these cases. See e.g., State v. Hammons, 2024-Ohio-6128, ¶ 25 (6th Dist.), aff'd, 2026-Ohio-3090, quoting Gwynne at ¶ 21 (lead opinion); State v. Sweet, 2026-Ohio-1082, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.), citing Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195 at ¶ 43 - 44. Replogle has acknowledged these cases, but states that he wishes “to both preserve his claim, and advance the notion that if a trial court wishes to impose sentences of great length, or that impose effective life sentences (as here and in the Sweet case), then such sentences ought not be imposed sub silento.” He contends that the proper analysis is found in Justice Fischer’s concurring opinion in Glover, where Justice Fisher asserted that, when determining whether consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and the danger the offender poses to the public,” courts should consider the aggregate prison term, and explained the analysis that should take place. Glover at ¶ 66 - 69. {¶ 12} The Ohio Supreme Court has recently addressed this issue. As Replogle pointed out in his brief, “[t]he specific question presented here, whether the court must determine that the aggregate sentence resulting from the stacking of consecutive sentences is proportionate to the offense imposed” was pending before the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Polizzi. The Ohio Supreme Court has since issued its decision in Polizzi, 2026-Ohio-2588, instructing that: [a]fter establishing that consecutive sentencing is appropriate for multiple offenses, the trial court has discretion to impose such sentences. In exercising this discretion, the trial court may consider the offender’s overall conduct and the harm caused by the crimes. On appeal, review is deferential and limited by the appellate-review statute: the appellate court may examine whether the trial court’s findings supporting consecutive sentences are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), and may also examine whether 6.  the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law,” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). The number of consecutive sentences and the total length of the aggregate prison term are not subject to appellate review. (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 30. {¶ 13} Replogle’s sole assignment of error asks us to find the trial court erred in failing to take the aggregate length of the sentence into account. Polizzi prevents us from reviewing Replogle’s sentence on the basis of the length of the aggregate prison term. We therefore find Replogle’s assignment of error not well-taken. Conclusion {¶ 14} The judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, Replogle is hereby ordered to pay the costs incurred on appeal. Judgment affirmed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE Myron C. Duhart, 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/. 7.