Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) calls for clear and convincing review of a claim that a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Barringer, 2007-P-0002 (2-22-2008) · filed 2008-02-22(G)(2)(b)

Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b), we will employ the "clear and convincing" standard of review for this assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(G) continues to govern appellate review of felony sentences after Foster except as to the severed sentencing provisions.

State v. Young, 07ca10 (3-11-2008) · filed 2008-03-11(G)

While the Foster court declared that a sentencing court possesses full discretion in sentencing an offender, the court abrogated R.C. 2953.08 (G), which defines the appellate court's role in sentencing, only "insofar as it applies to the severed sections" of Ohio's statutory sentencing scheme.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires the state to show by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings; it does not require the sentencing court to have clear and convincing evidence supporting them.

State v. Costlow, 89501 (3-13-2008) · filed 2008-03-13(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(a) states that our review is limited to determining if there is "clear and convincing evidence to show that the record does not support the sentencing court's [action]" — not to determine whether the court had clear and convincing evidence to support its findings. The standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) places the burden on the state to make an affirmative showing of error by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) provides clear-and-convincing appellate review when a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hubaker, 2007-L-162 (4-11-2008) · filed 2008-04-11(G)(2)(b)

Since R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b) does not apply to such judicial factfinding, but instead refers to errors in law, this statute survives with respect to the appellate standard of review of such errors. Thus, where it is to be argued the trial court's conduct was contrary to law, we are to apply a clear and convincing standard of review.

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Urbina, 4-06-21 (3-10-2008) · filed 2008-03-10(G)(2)

"Meaningful review" means that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to act on a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Simmons, 89573 (3-13-2008) · filed 2008-03-13(G)(2)(b)

In reviewing a sentence imposed for felony convictions, this court may take action only if it "clearly and convincingly finds" the sentence is "contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a sentence authorized by law, jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution, and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Aaron, 07 Ha 1 (3-14-2008) · filed 2008-03-14(D)(1)

As in the previous assignment of error, Appellant is barred from challenging his sentence, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1), because the sentence imposed by the judge was agreed upon by Appellant and the prosecutor.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence when clear and convincing evidence shows that it lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Pearce, Ot-07-040 (6-6-2008) · filed 2008-06-06(G)(2)

The sentence imposed is not contrary to law but is within the statutory range of sentences for the offense. Not only has appellant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that support for the sentence in the record is lacking, in our view the record amply supports the sentence imposed.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence that is contrary to law.

State v. Noel, 2007-Ca-15 (6-13-2008) · filed 2008-06-13(G)(2)(b)

After Foster , we may order the relief authorized by R.C. 2953.08 (G) if we find that a sentence is "contrary to law."

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law.

State v. McIntosh, L-07-1208 (6-13-2008) · filed 2008-06-13(G)(2)(b)

An appellate court has authority to "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing" if we "clearly and convincingly find" that the record does not support the trial court's findings, or "the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts to review felony sentences for whether they are clearly and convincingly contrary to law, rather than for abuse of discretion.

State v. Stroud, 07 Ma 91 (6-19-2008) · filed 2008-06-19(G)(2)

After reviewing the relevant statutes and Ohio Supreme Court precedent, we reject applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in any manner when reviewing felony sentences and will instead apply the statutory standard in R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), reversing a sentence only if it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. James, 2-07-36 (6-23-2008) · filed 2008-06-23

"Meaningful review" means that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Carter , at ¶ 44 citing State v. Comer (2003), 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 476 , 793 N.E.2d 473 , 2003-Ohio-4165 ; R.C. 2953.08 . ... Therefore, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support James' sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) continues to govern appellate review of felony sentences after Foster, except as it applies to severed sentencing provisions.

State v. Oros, 07ca30 (7-9-2008) · filed 2008-07-09(G)

While the Foster court declared that a sentencing court possesses full discretion in sentencing an offender, the court abrogated R.C. 2953.08 (G), which defines the appellate court's role in sentencing, only "insofar as it applies to the severed sections" of Ohio's statutory sentencing scheme.

Appellate review under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b) asks whether clear and convincing evidence shows that a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Jones, 06 Ma 109 (3-17-2008) · filed 2008-03-17(G)(2)(b)

There is no indication of an unconstitutional sentence here, and thus, we cannot say by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires the appellant to show sentencing error by clear and convincing evidence.

State v. Moore, Ca2007-03-060 (3-31-2008) · filed 2008-03-31(G)(2)

Appellate review under R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(a) is not a determination of whether the court had clear and convincing evidence to support its findings; the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) places the burden on the appellant to make an affirmative showing of error by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) retains a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for reviewing felony sentences after Foster.

State v. Gaston, L-06-1183 (4-18-2008) · filed 2008-04-18(G)(2)

In post- Foster sentencing appeals, "the clear and convincing evidence standard of review set forth under R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) remains viable[.]" State v. Burton , 10th Dist. No. 06AP-690, 2007-Ohio-1941 , ¶ 16 , quoting State v. Ramos , 3d Dist. No. 4-06-24, 2007-Ohio-767 , ¶ 23 . We now perform the clear and convincing standard to whether the sentence was supported by the record or was otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts to review a felony sentence under a clear and convincing standard, rather than for abuse of discretion.

State v. Chilton, 07ap-708 (5-1-2008) · filed 2008-05-01(G)(2)

Although defendant suggests we apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the trial court's sentence, R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) states "[t]he appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion." Rather, "[t]he appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence only upon clear and convincing evidence that the sentence lacks record support or is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Jenkins, L-07-1094 (5-2-2008) · filed 2008-05-02(G)(2)

"With regard to the standard of our review, even after Foster , an appellate court may not disturb an imposed sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record or is `otherwise contrary to law.' R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires the appellate court to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard when reviewing whether the record supports the sentencing court's action.

State v. Yuravak, 89891 (5-8-2008) · filed 2008-05-08(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(a) provides that our review is limited to determining if there is "clear and convincing evidence to show that the record does not support the sentencing court's [action]."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Walker, 89950 (5-8-2008) · filed 2008-05-08(G)(2)

A sentence will not be disturbed on appeal unless we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the standard for appellate review of whether a felony sentence is supported by the record and imposed in accordance with law.

State v. Munn, L-07-1044 (5-16-2008) · filed 2008-05-16(G)(2)

Nonetheless, the standard of review on appeal after Foster remains, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), to be whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is supported by the record and whether the sentence is imposed in accordance with the law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence only upon clear and convincing evidence that the sentence lacks record support or is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Morris, 89425 (6-19-2008) · filed 2008-06-19(G)(2)

We, however, believe the correct standard of review, even after Foster , is that we may not disturb an imposed sentence unless we find by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record or is otherwise "contrary to law," and follow our own cases (Moore and Donahue , supra), and the numerous other appellate districts, that have applied that standard.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs an appellate court to review whether clear and convincing evidence shows that a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Chambers, 89319 (6-19-2008) · filed 2008-06-19(G)(2)

An appellate court reviews a sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), which provides in part: ... We must now determine whether the record demonstrates clear and convincing evidence that Chambers' consecutive sentences were contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence lacks record support, fails to follow sentencing procedure, lacks a sufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law before an appellate court will disturb it.

State v. Maynez, 4-07-23 (6-23-2008) · filed 2008-06-23(G)(2)

A trial court's sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant's showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes' procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Glenn, 1-06-12 (6-23-2008) · filed 2008-06-23(G)(2)

Therefore, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support Glenn's sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) preserves clear and convincing review for the limited felony sentencing appeals in which the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Limbeck, 2007-T-0068 (6-27-2008) · filed 2008-06-27(G)(2)(b)

We recognize that although the abuse of discretion standard will govern most post-Foster sentencing appeals, there are certain, limited circumstances in which the clear and convincing standard that was left unexcised by Foster , pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b), would still apply. ... Therefore, this case falls outside of the very limited set of felony sentencing cases where the clear and convincing standard of review is still applicable post Foster.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence only upon clear and convincing evidence that the relevant findings lack record support or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Worthington, 9-07-62 (6-30-2008) · filed 2008-06-30(G)(2)

"[A] reviewing court may only disturb a trial court's sentence if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that either the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under the relevant statute or that the sentence is contrary to law." ... After reviewing the record, we find that Worthington did not show by clear and convincing evidence that his conviction was not supported by the record or was contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) allows an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is otherwise contrary to law; this standard remains applicable after Foster.

State v. McLaughlin, 07 Ma 39 (6-30-2008) · filed 2008-06-30(G)(2)(b)

As stated above, this court subscribes to the theory that R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)'s clear and convincing contrary to law standard is still applicable. Foster clearly indicated that the portions of R.C. 2953.08 (G) that did not refer to severed portions of the statute remained intact. Only R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(a) referred to such severed divisions. The main portion of (G)(2) does not refer to the severed portions, nor does (G)(2)(b), which states that an appellate court cannot disturb a sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is "otherwise contrary to law." Thus, it remains intact under the clear language of Foster.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits appellate review of a felony sentence to whether clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the sentencing court's action.

State v. Futo, 89791 (7-3-2008) · filed 2008-07-03(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(a) provides that our review is limited to determining if there is "clear and convincing evidence to show that the record does not support the sentencing court's [action]."

After Foster, § 2953.08(G)(2)(b) authorizes appellate relief when a sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Bryant, 2006ca0019 (5-2-2008) · filed 2008-05-02(G)(2)(b)

After Foster , we may order the relief R.C. 2953.08 (G) authorizes if we find that a sentence is "contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a sentence on an appeal under divisions (A), (B), or (C) only upon clear and convincing evidence that the relevant findings lack record support or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Guarjardo, 4-07-24 (7-21-2008) · filed 2008-07-21(G)(2)

However, in State v. Ramos , 3d Dist. No. 4-06-24, 2007-Ohio-767 , this Court noted that "the clear and convincing evidence standard of review set forth under R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) remains viable with respect to those cases appealed under the applicable provisions of R.C. 2953.08 (A), (B), and (C)." Id. at ¶ 23. Thus, a reviewing court may only disturb a trial court's sentence if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that either the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under the relevant statute or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law; Foster did not change that standard.

State v. Crim, 90222 (7-31-2008) · filed 2008-07-31

"`Meaningful review' means that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Comer , 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , at _10, citing R.C. 2953.08 , citing, Griffin Katz, Ohio Felony Sentencing Law (2002), 791-796, Sections 9.19-9.20. Foster did not change this standard.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to uphold a felony sentence unless the record clearly and convincingly shows that it lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Page, 90485 (8-21-2008) · filed 2008-08-21(G)(2)

Therefore, we will uphold a sentence on appeal unless it is clear and convincing the record does not support the sentence or it is contrary to law. Id.; R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G) allows an appellate court to act when it clearly and convincingly finds a felony sentence contrary to law; after Foster, that standard survives except as applied to severed sentencing provisions.

State v. Beaver, 07ca62 (9-2-2008) · filed 2008-09-02(G)

While the Foster court declared that a sentencing court possesses full discretion in sentencing an offender, the court abrogated R.C. 2953.08 (G), which defines the appellate court's role in sentencing, only "insofar as it applies to the severed sections" of Ohio's statutory sentencing scheme. Foster at ¶ 97-99. Thus, even after Foster , "[t]he 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 * * * [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Vickroy , Hocking App. No. 06CA4, 2006-Ohio-5461 , ¶ 15 , citing R.C. 2953.08 (G); see, also, State v. Rhodes , Butler App. No. CA2005-10-426, 2006-Ohio-2401 .

Section 2953.08(G) does not permit appellate review of a claim that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to overcome the presumption of imprisonment.

State v. Morin, 2008-Ca-10 (12-15-2008) · filed 2008-12-15(G)

Appellant's contention, therefore, is that the trial court abused the discretion conferred on it, which is not a matter for which R.C. 2953.08 (G) permits appellate review.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. McSwain, 90358 (7-24-2008) · filed 2008-07-24(G)(2)

A sentence will not be disturbed on appeal unless we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence only if clear and convincing evidence shows that it is unsupported by the record or contrary to law.

State v. Dovak, 90335 (8-14-2008) · filed 2008-08-14(G)(2)

Abuse of discretion is not the standard of review with respect to sentencing; instead, an appellate court must find error by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) provides that an appellate court may not increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence imposed under S.B. No. 2 unless it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the sentence is not supported by the record or is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing when clear and convincing evidence shows the sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record.

State v. Robinson, 8-08-05 (9-29-2008) · filed 2008-09-29(G)

A meaningful review allows the appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing if clear and convincing evidence shows the sentence was contrary to law or was not supported by the record. Daughenbaugh , supra, citing Carter , 2004-Ohio-1181 , at ¶ 44 ; R.C. 2953.08 (G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence when clear and convincing evidence shows that the sentence is unsupported by the record or contrary to law.

State v. Alexander, L-07-1251 (9-30-2008) · filed 2008-09-30(G)(2)

Despite the Ohio Supreme Court's use of the word "discretion," this court has stated that "even after Foster an appellate court may not disturb an imposed sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record or is `otherwise contrary to law.'" State v. Johnson , 6th Dist. No. OT-07-007, 2007-Ohio-6000 , ¶ 11 ; R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2). ... This court has reviewed the entire record in this case and, upon consideration thereof, finds that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits when an appellate court may disturb an imposed felony sentence: it must find by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence lacks record support or is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Carmen, Ca2007-06-030 (11-10-2008) · filed 2008-11-10(G)(2)

An appellate court may not disturb an imposed sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record, or is "otherwise contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2).

Subsection (G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing if clear and convincing evidence shows that the sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record.

State v. Montgomery, 3-08-10 (12-1-2008) · filed 2008-12-01(G)

A meaningful review allows the appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing if clear and convincing evidence shows the sentence was contrary to law or was not supported by the record. Daughenbaugh , supra, citing Carter , 2004-Ohio-1181 , at ¶ 44 ; R.C. 2953.08 (G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to reverse or modify a sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Vanover, 2007 Ca 30 (9-19-2008) · filed 2008-09-19(G)(2)(b)

And, on appeal, `we may reverse or modify a sentence only if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" that a sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or remand a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Morales-Gomez, 08ap-336 (12-11-2008) · filed 2008-12-11(G)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G), an appellate court may modify a sentence or may remand for resentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the appellate standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Phillis, 08ca13 (12-12-2008) · filed 2008-12-12(G)

This court had settled on a "hybrid" standard of review. ... The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.' State v. Vickroy, Hocking App. No. 06CA4, 2006-Ohio-5461 , ¶ 15 , citing R.C. 2953.08 (G); ... {¶ 11} Thus, we continue to adhere to our aforementioned standard of review.

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the clearly-and-convincingly-contrary-to-law standard for appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Smith, 90794 (12-24-2008) · filed 2008-12-24(G)

The first prong of the analysis instructs that "the appellate court must ensure that the trial court has adhered to all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence. As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08 (G)." Id. at ¶ 14. ... Accordingly, the first step under Kalish was satisfied, and we now consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Smith.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence only on clear and convincing evidence that it lacks record support or is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Hanni, 91014 (1-15-2009) · filed 2009-01-15(G)(2)

An appellate court may not disturb an imposed sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record or is "otherwise contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2); State v. Moore , Cuyahoga App. No. 89779, 2008-Ohio-2365 ; State v. Donahue , Cuyahoga App. No. 89111, 2007-Ohio-6825 .

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if clear and convincing evidence shows that it is contrary to law or unsupported by the record.

State v. Tosco, 9-08-21 (2-2-2009) · filed 2009-02-02(G)

If clear and convincing evidence shows the sentence was contrary to law or was not supported by the record, an appellate court may modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing. Daughenbaugh , supra, citing Carter , 2004-Ohio-1181 , at ¶ 44 ; R.C. 2953.08 (G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence only when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is unsupported by the record or otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Preztak · filed 2009-02-12(G)(2)

An appellate court may not disturb an imposed sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record or is “otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence or remand for resentencing when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hayes, 08ap-233 (3-12-2009) · filed 2009-03-12(G)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G), an appellate court may modify a sentence or remand for resentencing if the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds: (1) the record does not support the sentence, or; (2) the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence or remand for resentencing if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. O'keefe, 08ap-724 (3-31-2009) · filed 2009-03-31(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08 (G) allows an appellate court to modify a sentence or remand for resentencing if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" that (1) the record does not support the sentence, or (2) "the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Dickinson, 11-08-08 (5-4-2009) · filed 2009-05-04(G)

A meaningful review means "that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." 2 Daughenbaugh , 2007-Ohio-5774 , at ¶ 8 , citing Carter , 2004-Ohio-1181 , at ¶ 44 ; R.C. 2953.08 (G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify a sentence or remand for resentencing if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Burkes, 08ap-830 (5-14-2009) · filed 2009-05-14(G)(2)

"R.C. 2953.08 (G) allows an appellate court to modify a sentence or remand for resentencing if the court `clearly and convincingly finds' that (1) the record does not support the sentence, or (2) `the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.'"

Section 2953.08(G) directs an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Kushlan, 91383 (5-14-2009) · filed 2009-05-14(G)

The first prong of the analysis instructs that "the appellate court must ensure that the trial court has adhered to all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence. As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08 (G)." Id. at ¶ 14. ... In addition, the trial court properly applied postrelease control and the sentence imposed was within the permissible statutory range of six to eighteen months. Accordingly, the first step under Kalish was satisfied.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing when it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Jeffries · filed 2009-05-22(G)(2)(b)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G), an appellate court may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing if it “clearly and convincingly finds” that the sentence imposed by the trial court is “contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) provides for clear-and-convincing review of a claim that a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Spencer, 2008-L-002 (8-1-2008) · filed 2008-08-01(G)(2)(b)

Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b), we will also employ the "clear and convincing" standard of review for this assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) provides for clear and convincing review of a felony sentence challenged as contrary to law.

State v. Spencer, 2008-L-002 (8-4-2008) · filed 2008-08-04(G)(2)(b)

Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b), we will also employ the "clear and convincing" standard of review for this assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to disturb a felony sentence on appeal.

State v. Williams, 9-07-61 (8-4-2008) · filed 2008-08-04(G)(2)

A trial court's sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant's showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes' procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs an appellate court to uphold a felony sentence unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Avery, 90233 (8-7-2008) · filed 2008-08-07(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), we will uphold a sentence on appeal unless we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentence or the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not limit review of felony sentences after Foster to abuse of discretion; appellate courts review compliance with surviving sentencing requirements and give deferential review to the length of an otherwise lawful sentence.

State v. Bapst, 07ca8 (8-20-2008) · filed 2008-08-20(G)(2)

Until further guidance is provided by the Supreme Court of Ohio, we review felony sentences using a standard of review which is not limited to a simple abuse of discretion analysis. ... In such instances, we afford the trial court the most deferential review regarding the length of sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Walker, 89892 (8-21-2008) · filed 2008-08-21(G)(2)

Although we apply a de novo standard of review, we will not disturb the imposed sentence on appeal unless we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law. Mathis; R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G) provides a standard for appellate review of felony sentences: whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Castle, 07-Ma-109 (9-17-2008) · filed 2008-09-17(G)

Appellate review of felony sentencing decisions examines whether the decision was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to disturb a felony sentence on appeal.

State v. Gant, 1-08-22 (10-20-2008) · filed 2008-10-20(G)(2)

A trial court's sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant's showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes' procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence only upon clear and convincing evidence that the sentence lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Bassett, 90887 (10-30-2008) · filed 2008-10-30(G)(2)

An appellate court may not disturb an imposed sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record or is "otherwise contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2); State v. Moore , Cuyahoga App. No. 89779, 2008-Ohio-2365 ; State v. Donahue , Cuyahoga App. No. 89111, 2007-Ohio-6825 .

Section 2953.08(G) requires appellate courts to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Redding, 90864 (11-6-2008) · filed 2008-11-06(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08 (G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to examine whether a felony sentence complies with applicable rules and statutes and is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Acedo-Gonzales, 2007 Ca 96 (11-7-2008) · filed 2008-11-07(G)

First, they must examine the sentencing court's compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law," the standard found in R.C. 2953.08 (G). ... Here, the trial court's decision was not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) directs appellate courts reviewing felony sentences to determine whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Reed, 08ap-20 (11-20-2008) · filed 2008-11-20(G)

In accordance with R.C. 2953.08 (G), when reviewing felony sentences, we examine whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that the defendant's felony sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires a clear and convincing basis to find a felony sentence contrary to law.

State v. Shank, 22520 (11-26-2008) · filed 2008-11-26(G)(2)(b)

Shank has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court did not properly consider the applicable sentencing factors and guidelines. Thus, Shank's sentence is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the clear-and-convincing standard for appellate review of whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Brunelle-Apley, 2008-L-014 (12-5-2008) · filed 2008-12-05(G)(2)

The full discretion given to the trial court in sentencing in Foster seemingly conflicts with the clear and convincing standard referenced in R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), which governs appellate review in sentencing matters. ... Therefore, applying the first step of the Kalish analysis, we find Mr. Brunelle's sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Mehl, 08ca5 (12-8-2008) · filed 2008-12-08(G)

Such a review involves a legal question and "is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law * * *." Id., citing R.C. 2953.08 (G).

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the clearly-and-convincingly-contrary-to-law standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence complies with applicable rules and statutes.

State v. Jenkins, 24166 (12-17-2008) · filed 2008-12-17(G)

{¶ 10} Post- Foster , this Court must employ a two-step analysis in reviewing sentencing. ... "As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08 (G)."

Section 2953.08(G) directs an appellate court to determine whether the trial court followed applicable sentencing rules and statutes; failure to do so makes the sentence clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Johnson, 2007-L-195 (12-31-2008) · filed 2008-12-31(G)

First, the appellate court must determine whether "the trial court has adhered to all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence." Id. at ¶ 14. It does this through application of R.C. 2953.08 (G). Failure by a trial court to adhere to all applicable rules and statutes when imposing sentence renders the sentence "clearly and convincingly contrary to law * * *." Id.

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Rabel, 91280 (1-29-2009) · filed 2009-01-29(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08 (G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) applies a clear and convincing evidence standard to appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Bauer, 8-08-21 (2-2-2009) · filed 2009-02-02(G)(2)

As to Bauer's overall sentence, a trial court's sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant's showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes' procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)’s requirement of a clear and convincing finding adds nothing to the determination that a sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Trifari, 08ca0043-M (2-17-2009) · filed 2009-02-17(G)(2)

When the General Assembly wrote, in 2953.08(G)(2), that an appellate court had to make a clear and convincing finding before it could change a criminal sentence, it confused two concepts. ... A determination that the trial court imposed a sentence "clearly and convincingly" contrary to law means nothing different from a determination that the trial court imposed a sentence contrary to the law.

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the clearly-and-convincingly-contrary-to-law standard for legal review of a felony sentence.

State v. Stewart, 2008-L-112 (2-27-2009) · filed 2009-02-27(G)

As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08 (G)." ... Therefore, applying the first prong of the Kalish analysis, we do not find the trial court's sentence to be clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence only upon clear and convincing evidence that the sentence lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Koreisl, 90950 (3-19-2009) · filed 2009-03-19(G)(2)

Clear and convincing evidence is the appropriate standard of review with respect to sentencing in this case. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) provides that an appellate court may not increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence imposed under S.B. No. 2 unless it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the sentence is not supported by the record or is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) directs appellate courts reviewing felony sentences to determine whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Dunkle, 08ap-370 (3-31-2009) · filed 2009-03-31(G)

Under the provisions of R.C. 2953.08 (G), "when reviewing felony sentences, we examine whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that the defendant's felony sentence is contrary to law."

Section 2953.08(G) provides the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence complies with applicable rules and statutes.

State v. Linz, Ca2008-05-052 (4-6-2009) · filed 2009-04-06(G)

In reviewing a felony sentence, an appellate court must ensure that the trial court adhered to all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence. Kalish at ¶ 14. "As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08 (G)." Id.

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard for the initial appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Smith, 08 Ca 42 (4-8-2009) · filed 2009-04-08(G)

Therefore, Kalish holds that, in reviewing felony sentences and applying Foster to the remaining sentencing statutes, appellate courts must use a two-step approach. "First, they must examine the sentencing court's compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. If this first prong is satisfied, the trial court's decision in imposing the term of imprisonment shall be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard."

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Logan, 91323 (4-9-2009) · filed 2009-04-09(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08 (G). ... Thus, we find that his sentence is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant challenging a felony sentence to show by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record or contrary to law.

State v. Fedele, 15-09-01 (4-27-2009) · filed 2009-04-27(G)(2)

A trial court's sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant's showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes' procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the clearly-and-convincingly-contrary-to-law standard for reviewing a felony sentence’s compliance with applicable sentencing law.

State v. Brown, 2008-L-152 (5-8-2009) · filed 2009-05-08(G)

As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08 (G).

Section 2953.08(G) provides a standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence is contrary to law, including whether the trial court properly applied the relevant sentencing statutes.

State v. Franklin · filed 2009-06-09(G)

In State v. Burton, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-690, 2007-Ohio-1941, 2007 WL 1196579, ¶ 19, this court held that pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G), we review whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that a felony sentence is contrary to law. ... In applying the contrary-to-law standard, we determine whether the trial court considered and properly applied the appropriate statutory guidelines and whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of a felony sentence when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds it contrary to law.

State v. Robinson, 07 Ma 224 (8-19-2008) · filed 2008-08-19(G)(2)

When reviewing a felony sentence, we are only allowed to reverse that sentence if we clearly and convincingly find that the trial court's decision is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellant to show by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Silva, Ca2008-01-007 (9-2-2008) · filed 2008-09-02(G)(2)

Accordingly, we find that appellant failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the record did not support the imposition of sentence or that the sentence was otherwise contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08 (G); State v. Moore , Butler App. No. CA2007-03-060, 2008-Ohio-1477 (appellate review under R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) places the burden on the appellant to make an affirmative showing of error by clear and convincing evidence); State v. Endress , Butler App. No. CA2007-03-079, 2008-Ohio-1666 .

Section 2953.08(G)(2) applies a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard to appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Hall · filed 2009-08-03(G)(2)

A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes’ procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant challenging a felony sentence to show by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record, sentencing procedures were not followed, the prison term lacks a sufficient basis, or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Messenger · filed 2010-02-16(G)(2)

A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes’ procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Petrik · filed 2010-08-09(G)

We note that the Supreme Court of Ohio’s plurality opinion in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, established a two-part test utilizing an abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of felony sentencing decisions under R.C. 2953.08(G). While we cite to this Court’s precedential clear and convincing review standard adopted by three dissenting Justices in Kalish, we note that our decision in this case would be identical under the Kalish plurality’s two-part test.

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Reed · filed 2011-01-27(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law, as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to determine whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Withers · filed 2011-06-23(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we must determine whether or not the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G). ... In the instant case, we do not find appellant’s sentence to be contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts to review felony sentences without using an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Fhiaras · filed 2012-08-23(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides the following regarding an appellate court’s review of a sentence on appeal: ...The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing when clear and convincing evidence shows that the sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record.

State v. Heft · filed 2009-11-09(G)

A meaningful review allows the appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing if clear and convincing evidence shows the sentence was contrary to law or was not supported by the record. Daughenbaugh, supra, citing Carter, 2004-Ohio-1181, at ¶44; R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Brownridge · filed 2010-01-19(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Daughenbaugh, 2007-Ohio-5774, at ¶8, citing Carter, 2004-Ohio-1181, at ¶44; R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Shepherd · filed 2010-02-16(G)

We note that the Supreme Court of Ohio’s plurality opinion in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, established a two-part test utilizing an abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of felony sentencing decisions under R.C. 2953.08(G). While we cite to this Court’s precedential clear and convincing review standard adopted by three dissenting Justices in Kalish, we note that our decision in this case would be identical under the Kalish plurality’s two-part test.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Holt · filed 2010-05-24(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that it is contrary to law.

State v. Meeker · filed 2010-11-15(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) applies a clear and convincing evidence standard to review of felony sentences appealed under § 2953.08(A), (B), or (C).

State v. Boysel · filed 2011-04-11(G)(2)

A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes’ procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law. State v. Ramos, 3d Dist. No. 4-06-24, 2007-Ohio-767, ¶23 (the clear and convincing evidence standard of review set forth under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) remains viable with respect to those cases appealed under the applicable provisions of R.C. 2953.08(A), (B), and (C) * * *); State v. Rhodes, 12th Dist. No. CA2005-10-426, 2006-Ohio-2401, ¶4; State v. Tyson, 3d Dist. Nos. 1-04-38; 1-04-39, 2005-Ohio-1082, ¶19, citing R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Brunning · filed 2011-04-21(G)

We first must review whether the sentence is contrary to law pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Carney · filed 2011-05-12(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether Carney’s sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to determine whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Woodson · filed 2011-06-09(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Tatum · filed 2011-06-20(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Daughenbaugh, 2007-Ohio-5774, at ¶8, citing Carter, 2004-Ohio-1181, at ¶44; R.C. 2953.08(G). Having found that the offenses are not allied, we find that the trial court’s decision to sentence Tatum to consecutive sentences was not contrary to law and thus was proper.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Young · filed 2011-07-18(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Quigley · filed 2011-10-27(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether Quigley’s sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G). ... Accordingly, we do not find Quigley’s sentence contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard for the legal review of a felony sentence.

State v. Cemino · filed 2011-11-04(G)

As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Searles · filed 2011-12-08(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether Searles’s sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hurley · filed 2012-01-30(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”3 Daughenbaugh, citing Carter at ¶ 44; R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Allenback · filed 2012-02-27(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Daughenbaugh, citing Carter at ¶ 44; R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to determine whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Lindsey · filed 2012-03-01(G)

We must determine whether or not the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hartman · filed 2012-03-05(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Daughenbaugh at ¶ 8, citing Carter at ¶ 44; R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires appellate review of whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Ward · filed 2012-03-22(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Boyd · filed 2012-04-26(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether Boyd’s sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Ybarra · filed 2012-07-23(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Daughenbaugh at ¶ 8, citing Carter, 2004-Ohio-1181, at ¶ 44; R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate consecutive sentences only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Alexander · filed 2012-07-27(G)(2)

Rather, a reviewing court may vacate consecutive sentences only if “it clearly and convincingly finds” either that the record does not support the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires an appellate court reviewing whether the trial court considered R.C. 2929.12 factors to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Ditto · filed 2010-04-05(G)(2)(b)

In the former, the standard of review on appeal is whether the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law, i.e. that the trial court failed to consider the factors of R.C. 2929.12, as set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires appellate courts to review a felony sentence in two steps: whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law and whether the trial court abused its discretion.

State v. Merriweather · filed 2010-05-20(G)(2)(b)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), appellate courts must use a two-step approach in reviewing felony sentences, examining whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law and whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the penalty.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence lacks record support, violates sentencing procedure, lacks a sufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law.

State v. Ford · filed 2010-08-30(G)(2)

A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes’ procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Harvey · filed 2010-11-08(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court reviewing a challenged felony sentence to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Klose · filed 2010-11-22(G)

In Kalish, four panel members noted that R.C. 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review a defendant’s sentence, when challenged, to ascertain whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. ... Thus, we do not find that this sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence is unsupported by the record, fails to follow sentencing procedure, lacks a sufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law.

State v. Parsons · filed 2011-01-18(G)(2)

A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes’ procedure was not followed, or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to disturb a felony sentence on appeal because it lacks record support, fails to follow sentencing procedures, lacks a sufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law.

State v. Flanigan · filed 2011-01-31(G)(2)

A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes’ procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides a clear and convincing evidence standard for appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Turks · filed 2010-12-06(G)(2)

This Court notes that the Ohio Supreme Court has recently released a plurality opinion on the issue of whether a clear and convincing standard or an abuse of discretion standard is proper for reviewing felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G). ... Although this Court utilized our precedential clear and convincing standard, affirmed and adopted by Kalish’s three dissenting Justices, we would have concluded that Turks’ sentence was proper under the Kalish plurality’s two-step approach as well.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and remand when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Siefer · filed 2011-04-18(G)

A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Daughenbaugh, 2007-Ohio-5774, at ¶8, citing Carter, 2004-Ohio-1181, at ¶44; R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) applies a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard to appellate review of felony sentences.

State v. Siefker · filed 2011-04-18(G)(2)

A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes’ procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Subsection (G) requires appellate review of a felony sentence to begin by determining whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Heard · filed 2011-04-28(G)

Thus, in the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hudson · filed 2011-08-04(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether Hudson’s sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant challenging a felony sentence to show by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Mapp · filed 2011-09-06(G)(2)

Furthermore, we find that Mapp has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court’s consecutive sentences were not supported by the record or that there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G) requires appellate review of whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Quinonez · filed 2011-09-08(G)

Thus, in the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).