Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

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

State v. Martinez · filed 2011-11-10(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. Shepard · filed 2011-12-12(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. McGee · filed 2011-12-15(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether McGee’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. Asadi-Ousley · filed 2012-01-12(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) requires clear and convincing evidence to disturb a felony sentence on appeal when the sentence lacks record support, sentencing procedures were not followed, the prison term lacks a sufficient basis, or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Ramey · filed 2012-01-17(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) requires an appellant challenging a sentence as contrary to law to meet a clear-and-convincing standard of review.

State v. Hall · filed 2011-05-31(G)

In Kalish, four of seven panel members1 noted that R.C. 2953.08(G) requires that appellate courts require appellants to meet a clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard of review when reviewing a sentence. ... Thus, Hall has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment was contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court initially to review a felony sentence for whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, despite the excised fact-finding provisions referenced in (G)(2).

State v. Leasure · filed 2012-01-30(G)(2)

“Thus, despite the fact that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) refers to the excised judicial fact-finding portions of the sentencing scheme, an appellate court remains precluded from using an abuse-of-discretion standard of review when initially reviewing a defendant's sentence. Instead, 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).” Kalish at ¶ 14.

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

State v. Casshie · filed 2012-02-02(G)

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

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

State v. Reynolds · filed 2012-02-16(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)(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. Heidrick · filed 2012-04-19(G)(2)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), 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) applies a clear and convincing evidence standard when reviewing covered felony sentences on appeal.

State v. Pence · filed 2012-04-23(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(G)(2) requires a defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence lacks record support, violates sentencing procedures, lacks a sufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law before an appellate court will disturb it.

State v. Stone · filed 2012-04-30(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)(2) provides that abuse of discretion is not the standard for appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Hites · filed 2012-04-30(G)(2)

The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not use abuse of discretion as the standard for reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Johnson · filed 2012-06-07(G)(2)

The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

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

State v. Elston · filed 2012-06-25(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.

State v. Patterson · filed 2012-06-25(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) requires an appellant challenging maximum and consecutive sentences to show clearly and convincingly that the judgment is contrary to law.

State v. Howard · filed 2012-06-25(G)

An assignment of error challenging imposition of a maximum and consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14 will only be sustained if appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) permits a reviewing court to disturb a felony sentence upon clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support it or that it is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Hoskinson · filed 2012-07-10(G)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G), a reviewing court will not disturb a defendant's sentence unless it finds, “by clear and convincing evidence, that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not use an abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of a sentence.

State v. Lyles · filed 2012-07-26(G)(2)

The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

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, or is contrary to law.

State v. Martinez · filed 2012-08-20(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.

A defendant appealing a felony sentence bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record, sentencing procedures were not followed, there was insufficient basis for prison, or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. O'Neill · filed 2009-11-23(G)(2)

The defendant bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the sentence is not supported by the record, that 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.

Under § 2953.08(G)(2), a sentence within the statutory range is not contrary to law where the defendant claims no prejudice from the trial court’s mistaken view of the minimum term.

State v. Roundtree · filed 2012-07-26(G)(2)

While the trial court appeared to be under the impression that the minimum sentence for Roundtree’s attempted felonious assault conviction was 12 months, Roundtree’s two-year sentence was within the statutory range. ... Roundtree does not claim that he was prejudiced, the trial court stated its reasons for imposing the two-year sentence, and the sentence does not exceed the maximum statutory term of 36 months. ... Therefore, Roundtree’s two-year prison sentence in Case No. CR-552402 is not contrary to law, and thus, is proper under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to apply a clear-and-convincing standard rather than an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Sherman · filed 2012-08-30(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) explicitly sets forth the applicable standard of review: ... The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to sustain a challenge to consecutive sentences when the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Davis · filed 2012-08-30(G)

An appellate court may only sustain an assignment of error challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14 if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) governs appellate review of felony sentences; this court applies a clear and convincing evidence standard to determine whether a sentence lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Hartley · filed 2012-09-10(G)

We note that the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, establishes 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 evidence standard adopted by the three dissenting justices in Kalish, we note that the outcome of our decision here would be the same under the plurality’s two-part test.

Section 2953.08(G) allows an appellate court to sustain a challenge to consecutive sentences only if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Wilson · filed 2012-09-13(G)

An appellate court may only sustain an assignment of error challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14 if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G).

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

State v. Berry · filed 2012-10-09(G)(2)

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)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence is unsupported by the record or contrary to law before it will be disturbed on appeal.

State v. Wild · filed 2012-10-11(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 or otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not use abuse of discretion as the standard for appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Carrington · filed 2012-10-11(G)(2)

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 sustain a challenge to consecutive sentences when the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Nowlin · filed 2012-10-19(G)

An appellate court may only sustain an assignment of error challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14 if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not use an abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Muhammed · filed 2012-11-01(G)(2)

The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for reviewing a felony sentence on appeal.

State v. Jackson · filed 2012-11-05(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) sets the standard for appellate review of consecutive sentences; that review is not for abuse of discretion.

State v. Redd · filed 2012-11-21(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate review of consecutive sentences under its statutory standard, rather than for abuse of discretion.

State v. Shepherd · filed 2012-11-21(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides that abuse of discretion is not the standard for reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Doss · filed 2012-12-06(G)(2)

The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts to review felony sentences for clear and convincing evidence that the sentencing findings lack record support or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Taylor · filed 2012-12-06(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of [felony] sentences is not an abuse of discretion. An appellate court must “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.” Id. If an appellate court clearly and convincingly finds either that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.13(B)]” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then “the appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.”

Section 2953.08(G) governs appellate review of felony sentences; this court uses a clear and convincing evidence standard.

State v. Kinstle · filed 2012-12-17(G)

We note that the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, establishes 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 evidence standard adopted by the three dissenting justices in Kalish, we note that the outcome of our decision here would be the same under the plurality’s two-part test.

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

State v. Petti · filed 2012-12-24(G)

In the first step, we consider whether the trial court adhered to “all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence.” Id. at ¶26. “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)(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. Newsome · filed 2012-12-26(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 or otherwise contrary to law.” ... Notwithstanding the comments Newsome complains of on appeal, Newsome points to nothing that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that the record does not support the trial court’s imposition of the maximum sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence is unsupported by the record, was imposed without following sentencing procedures or a sufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law.

State v. McKenzie · filed 2012-12-26(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 whether a felony sentence complies with applicable rules and statutes.

State v. Jones · filed 2013-02-14(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 clearly-and-convincingly-contrary-to-law standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence complies with applicable law.

State v. Overstreet · filed 2013-02-19(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)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences under a clearly-and-convincingly-contrary-to-law standard.

State v. Robbins · filed 2013-02-22(G)(2)

Our review of Mr. Robbins’s sentence has two steps. First, we must determine whether the sentence was “clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” State v. Valdez, 1st Dist. No. C-110646, 2012-Ohio-5754, citing State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 14. Second, if it was not contrary to law, we review the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.; see R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence warrants reversal on appeal.

State v. Bentley · filed 2013-03-11(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.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides that appellate review of consecutive sentences is not for abuse of discretion.

State v. Wells · filed 2013-03-28(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion.

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, did not follow sentencing procedures, lacks a sufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law.

State v. Woten · filed 2013-04-08(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 that appellate review of consecutive sentences is not for abuse of discretion.

State v. Barkley · filed 2013-04-18(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence lacks record support, sentencing procedure was not followed, the prison term lacks a sufficient basis, or the sentence is contrary to law before an appellate court will disturb it.

State v. Rust · filed 2013-05-28(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 appellate courts reviewing consecutive sentences to examine the sentencing record and permits modification or remand upon specified clear and convincing findings.

State v. Williams · filed 2013-05-30(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion. An appellate court must “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.” Id. If an appellate court clearly and convincingly finds either that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then “the appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.” Id.

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

State v. Foster · filed 2013-05-30(G)(2)

An appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence only if it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08 provides a contrary-to-law standard for reviewing a challenge to a felony sentence’s firearm specifications.

State v. Sheffey · filed 2013-06-13

We review Sheffey’s challenge of the trial court’s imposition of multiple firearm specifications to determine whether it is contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the standard of review for all felony sentences.

State v. A.H. · filed 2013-06-20(G)(2)

Accordingly, we find that the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) shall govern all felony sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Harb · filed 2013-06-27(G)(2)

The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing. The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Dari · filed 2013-09-26(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that appellate review of a defendant’s sentence is not for an “abuse of discretion.” An appellate court must “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court,” and, in a case such as Dari’s, “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing” only if this court “clearly and convincingly” finds that “the sentence is * * * contrary to law.” Id.

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

State v. White · filed 2013-09-27(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may only modify or vacate Mr. White’s sentence if we “clearly and convincingly find” that either (1) the record does not support the mandatory sentencing findings, or (2) that the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides that appellate review of consecutive sentences does not use an abuse of discretion standard.

State v. Grier · filed 2013-04-25(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion standard.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides that appellate review of consecutive sentences is not for abuse of discretion.

State v. Mannarino · filed 2013-05-02(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the standard for appellate review of consecutive sentences: review is not for abuse of discretion.

State v. Bonness · filed 2013-06-27(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion.

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

State v. Robinson · filed 2013-06-27(G)(2)

Therefore, we presume the sentence imposed by the trial court is correct absent evidence that it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences when 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. Frost · filed 2013-07-03(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law”; or (2) the appellate court, upon its review, clearly and convincingly finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Bell · filed 2013-07-18(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of a defendant’s sentence is not an abuse of discretion. ... If an appellate court clearly and convincingly finds either that (a) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant”; or (b) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then “the appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets a deferential standard for appellate review of felony sentences, placing the burden of finding grounds for relief on the appellate court.

State v. Lee · filed 2013-08-05(G)(2)

Simply stated, the language in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes an "extremely deferential standard of review" for "the restriction is on the appellate court, not the trial judge."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences if they are contrary to law or if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Burt · filed 2013-08-15(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two bases for a reviewing court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law,” or the reviewing court clearly and convincingly finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to alter a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Dehner · filed 2013-08-19(G)(2)

Instead, an appellate court may take action authorized by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) only if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" that either: (1) "the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;" or (2) "[t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires an appellate court to clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support consecutive-sentence findings before granting relief on that ground.

State v. Swayne · filed 2013-08-20(G)(2)(a)

For him to succeed on appeal, we must clearly and convincingly find the record does not support the court’s findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences if they are contrary to law or if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Pavlina · filed 2013-08-22(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two bases for a reviewing court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law” or the reviewing court clearly and convincingly finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences that are contrary to law or whose required findings the record clearly and convincingly does not support.

State v. Kimmie · filed 2013-09-19(G)(2)

That statute provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law”; or (2) the appellate court, upon its review, clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and makes abuse of discretion the wrong standard of review.

State v. Hinojosa · filed 2013-09-23(G)(2)

In particular, 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)(2) applies a clear and convincing standard to appellate review of whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Blair-Walker · filed 2013-09-23(G)(2)

Rather, we apply R.C. 2953.08(G) and the clear and convincing standard to determine whether the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(C)(1), as written, does not outright preclude review of consecutive sentences in this case.

State v. Chavez · filed 2013-10-24(C)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(C)(1) is not clearly erroneous as written. The reference to R.C. 2929.14(C)(3) is arguably compatible with the rest of the subsection. Therefore, R.C. 2953.08(C) does not outright preclude review in this case.

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

State v. May · filed 2013-06-27(G)(2)(b)

This court, therefore, cannot find that the trial court’s decision to impose the maximum term on May is clearly and convincingly contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

State v. DeNiro · filed 2013-06-28(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).” ... Because the sentences imposed were within the statutory range of sentences for appellant’s crimes and the court considered the purposes and factors of felony sentencing, appellant’s sentence complied with all applicable statutes and therefore was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides that appellate review of a prison sentence is not for abuse of discretion.

State v. Jones · filed 2013-07-11(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), as amended by Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86, states that when reviewing prison sentences, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to disturb a felony sentence upon a clear and convincing showing that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Fletcher · filed 2013-07-15(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 appellate courts to review felony sentences under a standard other than abuse of discretion.

State v. Maddox · filed 2013-07-18(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of a defendant’s sentence is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(G) requires appellate review of a felony sentence for whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, rather than for abuse of discretion.

State v. Jackson · filed 2013-07-18(G)(2)

We review sentences under the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G). This statute directs that our review is not whether the trial court abused its discretion, but whether the sentence imposed is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences; abuse of discretion is not the standard.

State v. Brown · filed 2013-07-18(G)(2)

Instead, we follow the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which provides in relevant part: ... The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the standard for appellate review of a felony sentence; that standard is not abuse of discretion.

State v. Hill · filed 2013-07-25(G)(2)

The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and does not use an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Crawford · filed 2013-07-29(G)(2)

Therefore, from this day forward, rather than continue to apply the two-step approach as provided by Kalish, we find "the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) shall govern all felony sentences."

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to determine whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law when reviewing compliance with applicable sentencing rules and statutes.

State v. Tyler · filed 2013-08-05(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)(2) provides for appellate review of whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, including a reserved consecutive sentence.

State v. Williams · filed 2013-08-05(G)(2)

As appellant's reserved consecutive sentence has been legally pronounced and thus imposed, we review appellant's sentence to determine whether the imposition of the reserved consecutive sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. See State v. Crawford, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-12-088, 2013-Ohio-3315, ¶ 6-7; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and does not permit review under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Pearce · filed 2013-08-12(G)(2)

However, as noted above, the Generally Assembly has explicitly stated through the passage of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) that this court's standard for review "is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion." Therefore, we are not entitled to review the trial court's decision under the more lenient abuse of discretion standard.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) places the clear-and-convincing burden on the appellate court when it reviews whether the record supports a felony sentence.

State v. Warren · filed 2013-08-12(G)(2)

Instead, "it is the court of appeals that must clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the court's findings." Id. Simply stated, the language in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes an "extremely deferential standard of review" for "the restriction is on the appellate court, not the trial judge." Id.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate review of a felony sentence under a standard other than abuse of discretion.

State v. Zanders · filed 2013-08-22(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of a defendant’s sentence is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) places the clear-and-convincing standard on the appellate court when it reviews a felony sentence.

State v. Martin · filed 2013-08-26(G)(2)

It is important to remember that the "clear and convincing" standard to which R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) refers is to be used by the court of appeals in reviewing the trial court's felony sentencing decision.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to find clearly and convincingly that the record does not support the sentencing findings or that the sentence is contrary to law before disturbing a felony sentence.

State v. Fields · filed 2013-08-29(G)(2)

Under these circumstances, this court cannot clearly and convincingly conclude either that the record does not support the trial court’s findings or that the sentences imposed were contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Holbrook · filed 2013-09-03(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) makes abuse of discretion the wrong standard for appellate review of prison sentences.

State v. Wilson · filed 2013-09-12(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), as amended by H.B. 86, states that when reviewing prison sentences, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to disturb a felony sentence on appeal when the challenge concerns record support, sentencing procedure, the basis for a prison term, or whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Upkins · filed 2013-09-16(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) supplies the clear-and-convincing contrary-to-law standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence complies with applicable law.

State v. Rea · filed 2013-09-16(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).’”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) imposes a highly deferential standard on appellate review of felony sentences.

State v. Olvera · filed 2013-09-16(G)(2)

As such, the language in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes an "extremely deferential standard of review" for "the restriction is on the appellate court, not the trial judge."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and does not use an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Quarterman · filed 2013-09-19(G)(2)

Instead, we follow the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which provides in relevant part: ... The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to act when it clearly and convincingly finds that a felony sentence is contrary to law; abuse of discretion is not the standard of review.

State v. Curry · filed 2013-09-26(G)(2)

The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. Rather under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the court may take any action authorized under this provision if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a reviewing court to determine whether a sentencing error renders the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Kennedy · filed 2013-09-27(G)(2)

Instead, we apply the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which requires a reviewing court to determine if a sentencing error renders the sentence contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences, including consecutive sentences, under a clear and convincing contrary-to-law standard.

State v. Whitaker · filed 2013-10-07(G)(2)

As we recently noted in State v. Crawford, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-12- 088, 2013-Ohio-3315, "'the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) shall govern all felony sentences.'" Id. at ¶ 6, quoting State v. A.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013- Ohio-2525, ¶ 7. Accordingly, we review appellant's consecutive sentences to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences; abuse of discretion is not the standard.

State v. Money · filed 2013-10-14(G)(2)

However, as explicitly stated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), "[t]he appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) imposes an extremely deferential standard on appellate review of felony sentences, requiring the appellate court to clearly and convincingly find a statutory ground for changing the sentence.

State v. Philpot · filed 2013-10-14(G)(2)

Simply stated, the language in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes an "extremely deferential standard of review," as "the restriction is on the appellate court, not the trial judge." Id.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the “clearly and convincingly contrary to law” standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence complies with sentencing statutes.

State v. Duka · filed 2013-10-15(G)(2)

This is a purely legal question, which we consider under the “clearly and convincingly contrary to law” standard set forth at R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts to review felony sentences under a clear-and-convincing standard and permits modification or remand when the specified sentencing findings lack record support or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Barnett · filed 2013-10-17(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that when reviewing felony sentences, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” Rather, the statute states that if we “clearly and convincingly” find that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)],” or that (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then we “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or [we] may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing.” State v. Goins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-263, ¶ 6, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and does not use an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Sturgill · filed 2013-10-21(G)(2)

As noted above, the General Assembly has explicitly stated through the passage of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) that this court's standard for review "is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not use abuse of discretion as the standard for reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. McCoy · filed 2013-10-21(G)(2)

However, as explicitly stated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), "[t]he appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing review of specified sentencing errors rather than abuse-of-discretion review, and permits an appellate court to modify or vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

State v. Davila · filed 2013-11-07(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that when reviewing prison sentences, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” Instead, the statute states that if we “clearly and convincingly” find that, (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]” or that, (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then we “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or [we] may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides that abuse of discretion is not the standard for appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Torres · filed 2013-11-14(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that when reviewing felony sentences “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit appellate courts to review felony sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Kopilchak · filed 2013-11-14(G)(2)

We do not review felony sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence has a specified sentencing error or is contrary to law before an appellate court will disturb it.

State v. Toler · filed 2013-11-18(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) permits a reviewing court to modify or vacate a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law or that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Bohannon · filed 2013-11-20(G)(2)

Before a reviewing court can modify or vacate a felony sentence, it must clearly and convincingly find that the sentence is contrary to law or that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

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

State v. Wilson · filed 2013-11-25(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) sets a highly deferential standard for reviewing felony sentences: the appellate court must clearly and convincingly find that the specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Waggoner · filed 2013-11-25(G)(2)

Simply stated, the language in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes an "extremely deferential standard of review" for "the restriction is on the appellate court, not the trial judge."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate review of consecutive sentences for whether they are clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Jackson · filed 2013-12-09(G)(2)

We review appellant's consecutive sentences to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Crawford, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-12-088, 2013-Ohio-3315, ¶ 6-7. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the record supports the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies postrelease control, and sentences appellant within the permissible statutory range. See id. at ¶ 7, 9; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) imposes an extremely deferential standard for appellate review of felony sentences, restricting the appellate court rather than the sentencing judge.

State v. Durham · filed 2013-10-28(G)(2)

Simply stated, the language in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes an "extremely deferential standard of review" for "the restriction is on the appellate court, not the trial judge." Id.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not use abuse of discretion as the standard for appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Marshall · filed 2013-11-18(G)(2)

However, as explicitly stated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), "[t]he appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and does not permit review under an abuse of discretion standard.

State v. Haley · filed 2013-10-14(G)(2)

However, as explicitly stated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), "[t]he appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not use an abuse-of-discretion standard for review of felony sentences.

State v. Bement · filed 2013-12-12(G)(2)

We do not review felony sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

Section 2953.08(G) governs appellate review of whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Murphy · filed 2013-12-19(G)

"We review a trial court's sentence to determine if it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law." State v. Green, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-934, 2011-Ohio-6451, ¶ 7, citing State v. Burton, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-690, 2007-Ohio-1941, ¶ 19; R.C. 2953.08(G). In applying this standard, we look to the record to determine whether the sentencing court considered and properly applied the non-excised statutory guidelines and whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits appellate relief from a felony sentence when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Taylor · filed 2013-12-20(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08 governs an appeal of sentence for felony. ... Therefore, the sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence that specified sentencing findings lack record support or that a sentence is otherwise contrary to law before an appellate court may modify it.

State v. Heffelfinger · filed 2013-12-23(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(G)(2) requires a defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence is unsupported by the record, rests on a procedural error or an insufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law before an appellate court will disturb it.

State v. Fuller · filed 2013-12-23(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; that 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) supplies the clear-and-convincing contrary-to-law standard for reviewing felony sentences.

State v. Stamper · filed 2013-12-23(G)(2)

Rather, we review felony sentences to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Id. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the record supports the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies postrelease control, and sentences appellant within the permissible statutory range. See id. at ¶ 7, 9; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences when they are otherwise contrary to law or when the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Crider · filed 2013-10-17(G)(2)

That statute provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law”; or (2) the appellate court, upon its review, clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to reverse consecutive sentences 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. McKinney · filed 2013-12-26(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that when reviewing prison sentences, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” Instead, the statute permits the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences upon an offender if we “clearly and convincingly” find that, (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]” or that, (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the standard for appellate review of felony sentences controlled by H.B. 86.

State v. Rodeffer · filed 2013-12-27(G)(2)

In order to be consistent with the approach of other Ohio appellate districts that have already considered this issue in light of H.B. No. 86, we will no longer apply the two-part test in Kalish when reviewing felony sentences controlled by H.B. 86. From now on we will use the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) bars appellate review of a felony sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.

State v. Thompson · filed 2014-01-23(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(A) places strict limits on an appellate court’s ability to review criminal sentences. In particular, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to disturb a felony sentence on appeal because it lacks record support, sentencing procedures were not followed, or it is contrary to law.

State v. Hale · filed 2014-01-27(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)(2) directs appellate courts to review whether a felony sentence complies with law and whether clear and convincing evidence shows that the sentencing findings lack record support.

State v. Milhoan · filed 2014-01-30(G)(2)

As the case is now postured, this asks us to determine whether the trial court expressly made the required findings and whether we determine by clear and convincing evidence that those findings are not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb a sentence when 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. Fahl · filed 2014-01-31(G)(2)

We do not “clearly and convincingly” find either that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) excludes abuse-of-discretion review of a sentencing court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences.

State v. Jones · filed 2014-02-06(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) expressly states that an appeals court standard of review “is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.”

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, or is contrary to law before an appellate court will disturb it.

State v. Raymond · filed 2014-02-18(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) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences when 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. Bever · filed 2014-02-18(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the appellate court, upon its review, clearly and convincingly finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); or (2) the sentence is otherwise clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The appellate court’s standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

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

State v. Hoffer · filed 2014-02-18(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).” Id. ... Upon review, we find appellant’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Lane · filed 2014-02-18(G)(2)

Rather, the appellate court may take any action authorized under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) only if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" that either: (1) "the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;" or (2) "[t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing this felony sentence to clearly and convincingly find that it is contrary to law before reversing it.

State v. Holmes · filed 2014-02-20(G)(2)

Rather, we apply the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which in this case requires us to clearly and convincingly find that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) calls for appellate review of whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Ibrahim · filed 2014-02-25(G)

This court reviews a trial court's sentence to determine if it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Green, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-934, 2011-Ohio-6451, ¶ 7, citing State v. Burton, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-690, 2007-Ohio-1941, ¶ 19; R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and does not use an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Jackson · filed 2014-02-27(G)(2)

We do not review felony sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Kopilchak, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98984, 2013-Ohio-5016, ¶ 10, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the relevant sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law before it may modify or vacate a felony sentence.

State v. Mooty · filed 2014-02-28(G)(2)

We do not clearly and convincingly find that the record fails to support the court’s findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Lyle · filed 2014-03-03(G)(2)

We must still determine, after meaningful review, whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is contrary to the law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) bars appellate courts from reviewing a felony sentence for abuse of discretion.

State v. Moore · filed 2014-03-06(G)(2)

Accordingly, by statute we cannot review Moore’s sentence under an abuse of discretion standard, despite Moore’s request to the contrary.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the standard for reviewing felony sentences on appeal and permits modification or remand when the specified grounds are clearly and convincingly established.

State v. Haddon · filed 2014-03-06(G)(2)

We do not review felony sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Rather, we may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing if we determine that the record clearly and convincingly * * * does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [various provisions]; [or] [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and permits relief when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Craft · filed 2014-03-14(G)(2)

However, after the briefs were filed, this court began to review felony sentencing using the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... We do not clearly and convincingly find that the sentence is contrary to law as provided in Rodeffer.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits a reviewing court to vacate or modify a sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support mandatory sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Boykins · filed 2014-03-21(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), a reviewing court may only vacate or modify a sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either that the record does not support the mandatory sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence only upon a clear and convincing finding that the record does not support mandatory sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Hoffman · filed 2014-03-21(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may only modify or vacate a defendant’s sentence if we find, clearly and convincingly, that (1) the record does not support the mandatory sentencing findings, or (2) that the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that required findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Boysel · filed 2014-03-28(G)(2)

From now on we will use the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... We do not clearly and convincingly find that the record fails to support the court's findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences if they are contrary to law or if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required sentencing findings.

State v. Johnson · filed 2013-12-26(G)(2)

That statute provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) when the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law” or (2) when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to reverse, modify, or vacate consecutive sentences that are contrary to law or whose required findings lack clear and convincing support in the record.

State v. Perrine · filed 2013-12-26(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08, an appellate court may reverse, modify, or vacate the imposition of consecutive sentences if: (1) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law;” or (2) the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences when 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. Jones · filed 2014-01-09(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the appellate court, upon its review, clearly and convincingly finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or (2) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”