Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

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

State v. Cruz · filed 2014-01-27(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08, there exists only two grounds that would allow this court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law”; or (2) this court, upon review, clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

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

When reviewing consecutive sentences, this court has adopted the standard set forth in State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891, 992 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 8-10 (8th Dist.). In that case, we explained that R.C. 2953.08 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) calls for affirming consecutive sentences when the trial court made the required findings and the sentences are not otherwise contrary to law.

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

We will affirm a trial court’s order for consecutive sentences if the trial court has made the requisite findings set forth in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and so long as the sentences are not otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); State v. Venes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98682, 2013-Ohio-1891, ¶ 11.

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

State v. Scates · filed 2014-02-07(G)(2)

Under this statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence; or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. It may take these actions, however, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is contrary to law. ... Upon review, we find no basis for altering Scates’ sentence or remanding for resentencing under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the judge; under this court’s rule, an agreed sentence waives an allied-offenses argument.

State v. Simmons · filed 2014-02-13(D)

Appellate review of a negotiated felony sentence is governed by R.C. 2953.08(D), which states in part: “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” Accordingly, this court has held that a defendant who pleads guilty in exchange for an agreed sentence waives any allied offenses argument. State v. Savage, 7th Dist. No. 08 MA 54, 2009-Ohio-7011. In this instance, Simmons pleaded guilty and Simmons’s counsel plainly indicated at the sentencing hearing that the proposed sentence was an agreed upon sentence. (Tr. 13.) Therefore, Simmons has waived any allied offenses argument.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits 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 findings.

State v. Johnson · filed 2014-02-13(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) permits 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 findings.

State v. Redd · filed 2014-02-13(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may overturn 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) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Spock · filed 2014-02-20(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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits 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 findings.

State v. Conner · filed 2014-02-20(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) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence only when 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. Howard · filed 2014-02-26(G)(2)

Under the standard of review in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), this court may only modify or vacate a sentence if the court “clearly and convincingly find[s]” that either (1) the record does not support the mandatory sentencing findings, or (2) that the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.” State v. White, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130114, 2013-Ohio-4225, ¶ 11.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires an appellate court to affirm consecutive sentences when the trial court made the required findings unless the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support them.

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

This court held in State v. Venes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98682, 2013-Ohio-1891, that if the trial court has properly made the required findings in order to impose consecutive sentences, we must affirm those sentences unless we “clearly and convincingly” find “[t]hat the record does not support the court’s findings[.]”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows 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. Harris · filed 2014-03-13(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, on 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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to find clear and convincing grounds before changing the sentence.

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

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).

An appellate court must reverse a felony sentence it clearly and convincingly finds contrary to law.

State v. Wolford · filed 2014-03-20(G)(2)(b)

We must reverse a sentence if we clearly and convincingly find that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of an aggravated murder sentence on an evidentiary basis.

State v. Hawkins · filed 2014-03-21(D)(3)

Thus, like the courts in Patterson and Jones, we find that pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), we lack statutory authority to review Hawkins’ sentence on an evidentiary basis.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) governs appellate review of a maximum sentence.

State v. Lister · filed 2014-03-27(G)(2)(b)

This appeal concerns the imposition of a maximum sentence; thus our review is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

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

Under this statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence; or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. It may take these actions, however, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences under a clear-and-convincing standard that is more deferential to the sentencing court than abuse-of-discretion review.

State v. Polhamus · filed 2014-01-17(G)(2)

This standard is more deferential to the trial court’s determination than an abuse of discretion. Nonetheless, even under an abuse of discretion review, we find no error.

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

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

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing if the appellate court "clearly and convincingly finds" that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) imposes an extremely deferential standard of review on appellate courts reviewing felony sentences.

State v. Hughes · filed 2014-03-31(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." Id.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to clearly and convincingly find a statutory ground before modifying a felony sentence.

State v. Henry · filed 2014-03-31(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) precludes appellate review of a sentencing judge’s weighing of felony sentencing factors for abuse of discretion.

State v. Smith · filed 2014-04-10(G)(2)

We cannot, however, review the sentencing judge’s exercise of that discretion because R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) expressly states that “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate review of a felony sentence to the statutory grounds and does not permit an appellate court to reweigh sentencing factors for abuse of discretion.

State v. Warner · filed 2014-04-10(G)(2)

The legislature limited our review to whether the sentence is contrary to law, expressly rejecting any abuse of discretion review. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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. Jones · filed 2014-04-11(G)(2)

In State v. Rodeffer, 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 25574, 25575, and 25576, 2013-Ohio-5759, this court adopted R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) as the appellate standard of review for felony sentences. ... For the foregoing reasons we do not clearly and convincingly find that Jones’s prison sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Kinsworthy · filed 2014-04-14(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, rather than the trial court.

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

State v. Patterson · filed 2014-04-17(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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) uses a clear and convincing standard to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law; a sentence within the statutory range is presumptively valid when the sentencing court has considered the sentencing factors.

State v. Williams · filed 2014-04-17(G)(2)

In reviewing whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly otherwise contrary to law, we are constrained by the fact that the sentencing range is determined by the legislature and any sentence imposed within that range, after the sentencing court has considered all the sentencing factors, is presumptively valid.

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

State v. Powers · filed 2014-04-18(G)(2)

However, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Back · filed 2014-04-18(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is the appellate standard of review for all felony sentences, including consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Johnson · filed 2014-04-21(G)(2)

Rather, we review felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Stairhime · filed 2014-04-28(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) permits an appellate court to reverse a sentence when it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Murry · filed 2014-04-30(G)(2)

An appellate court may not reverse a sentence unless it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Baker · filed 2014-04-30(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) specifies that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a challenged felony sentence if the court clearly and convincingly finds either that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under the specified statutory provisions or “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Graham · filed 2014-05-05(G)(2)

We review felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not provide a different appellate standard of review for multiple counts of aggravated murder.

State v. Lane · filed 2014-05-12(G)(2)

Further, nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) suggests that a different appellate standard of review, let alone the standard suggested by appellant, applies in the case of multiple counts of aggravated murder.

An appellate court may reverse a felony sentence as contrary to law only if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Rabe · filed 2014-05-12(G)(2)

"The standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) shall govern all felony sentences." ... As pertinent to this case, an appellate court will only reverse a felony sentence if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" that the trial court's sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Craver · filed 2014-05-16(G)(2)

Craver’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing also lacks merit. “The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to first review whether a felony sentence clearly and convincingly complies with applicable law.

State v. Dean · filed 2014-05-19(G)

When reviewing a felony sentence, an appellate court must first review the sentence to ensure the sentencing court clearly and convincingly complied with the applicable laws.

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

State v. Watson · filed 2014-05-22(G)(2)

However, this court no longer applies the abuse of discretion standard of State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, when reviewing a felony sentence. ... The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) excludes abuse of discretion as the standard for appellate review of prison sentences.

State v. Venes · filed 2014-05-29(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.”

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony 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. Curless · filed 2014-04-09(G)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G), we may only modify or vacate [a defendant’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.’ ” State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225, 997 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate review of a felony sentence by asking whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the required findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Garcia · filed 2014-04-11(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) permits an appellate court to reverse consecutive sentences if the sentence is contrary to law or the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Croce · filed 2014-04-17(G)(2)

Thus, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the following two grounds permit an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences upon an offender: (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.”

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

State v. Steele · filed 2014-04-17(G)(2)

We reiterate that this court no longer applies the abuse of discretion standard of State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, when reviewing a felony sentence. ... 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) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when the record clearly and convincingly fails to support required findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Tharp · filed 2014-04-17(G)(2)

A reviewing court 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.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits a reviewing court to modify or vacate a felony sentence only when 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. McAfee · filed 2014-04-18(G)(2)

Our review of McAfee’s remaining challenges in his second assignment of error, to the imposition of the maximum sentence and the adequacy of postrelease-control notification, is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The statute permits a reviewing court to modify or vacate a sentence only if the court “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 alter a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support a specified sentencing finding or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Courtney · filed 2014-04-18(G)(2)

Based on the foregoing, we do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that Courtney was in a “position of trust” that facilitated her offense. ... For the foregoing reasons we do not clearly and convincingly find that Courtney’s prison sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law; a sentence within the statutory range satisfies that review.

State v. Finch · filed 2014-04-21(G)

In the first step, we consider whether the trial court ‘adhered to all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence.’ Id. at ¶ 25. ‘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. ... Per R.C. 2929.14, a second degree felony can result in a prison term of two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight years. In the present matter, Finch was sentenced to a six-year prison term. Therefore his sentence was not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to change a felony sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the specified findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law; abuse of discretion is not the standard of review.

State v. Brewer · filed 2014-04-24(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) specifies that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a challenged felony sentence if the court clearly and convincingly finds either that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under the specified statutory provisions or “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” As noted previously, under this standard the appellate court does not determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.

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

State v. Jarvi · filed 2014-04-28(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).’ Id. ... Given that appellant’s nine-year term falls within the governing statutory range, her sentence is clearly and convincingly consistent with the applicable Ohio law. Hence, the first step of the Kalish standard has been met.

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. Slane · filed 2014-05-08(G)

In accordance with 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." State v. Hayes, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-233, 2009-Ohio-1100, ¶ 6.

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.

State v. Demeo · filed 2014-05-12(G)(2)

These findings are supported by the record, particularly the very complete presentence investigation report detailing Mr. Demeo’s criminal background. Thus, imposition of consecutive sentences was not “clearly and convincingly” unsupported by the record, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Swift · filed 2014-05-12(G)(2)

An appellate court may take any action authorized under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) only if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" 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." Crawford at ¶ 7; Pearce at ¶ 25.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to review consecutive sentences for abuse of discretion.

State v. Powell · filed 2014-05-15(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) makes it clear that “[t]he 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 vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing when it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Snider · filed 2014-05-22(G)(2)

When reviewing a felony sentence, we follow the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which provides in relevant part: ... 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 resentencing. 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. ... The lack of the required findings prior to imposing consecutive sentences is error, and we must vacate Snider’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn 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. Dodson · filed 2014-05-29(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, on 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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to reverse consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that the required findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Lababidi · filed 2014-05-29(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) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences that are contrary to law or whose required findings lack clear and convincing support in the record.

State v. Mosley · filed 2014-05-29(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 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. Finklea · filed 2014-04-10(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) permits an appellate court to overturn a consecutive sentence if it is contrary to law or the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Thompson · filed 2014-05-29(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may overturn the imposition of a consecutive sentence if (1) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law or (2) we clearly and convincingly find 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 change or vacate a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that specified findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Green · filed 2014-05-30(G)(2)

Under this statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits appellate relief from a felony sentence only upon a clear and convincing finding that specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

Rather, an appellate court may take any 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." R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)-(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to clearly and convincingly find that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Tate · filed 2014-06-05(G)(2)

This court acknowledges that not all districts in Ohio are applying R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to the exclusion of State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, which indicated that felony sentences are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. However, this court applies the statutory standard, which requires the appellate court to clearly and convincingly find that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides a clear-and-convincing standard for reviewing whether the record supports consecutive-sentence findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Summers · filed 2014-06-06(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) permits an appellate court to reverse consecutive sentences when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Grant · filed 2014-06-19(G)(2)

In accordance with this statute, the appellate court may reverse the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that: (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings,” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Caraballo · filed 2014-06-19(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we do not review felony sentences under an abuse of discretion standard. Rather, we review Caraballo’s sentence to determine whether it is contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4).

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

State v. Boyd · filed 2014-06-19(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.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) calls for an appellate court to determine whether it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required sentencing findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Ratliff · filed 2014-06-20(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); State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069 (2d Dist.).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the standard for appellate review of a felony sentence and excludes abuse of discretion review.

State v. Stone · filed 2014-06-23(G)(2)

Our standard of review is provided by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which provides, in pertinent part: ... The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) applies the same legal standard as the first prong of Kalish when reviewing whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Scott · filed 2014-06-24(G)(2)

Turning to the matter at bar, whether under the first prong of Kalish or under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the same legal standard is applied.

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

State v. Bonds · filed 2014-06-26(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we do not review felony sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Rather, we review Bonds’s felony sentence to determine whether it is contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to disturb a felony sentence on appeal because it is unsupported by the record or contrary to law.

State v. Norman · filed 2014-07-07(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) does not permit appellate review of consecutive sentences for abuse of discretion, so an argument that the sentencing court gave too little weight to mitigating factors is unreviewable.

State v. Williams · filed 2014-07-17(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) makes clear that our standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion, so Williams’s argument that the court failed to give greater weight to certain factors is unreviewable.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences; a sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law when the trial court considers the required sentencing factors, properly applies postrelease control, and sentences within the statutory range.

State v. Totty · filed 2014-07-24(G)(2)

A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies postrelease control and sentences a defendant within the permissible statutory range.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to reverse consecutive prison 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. Donat · filed 2014-07-24(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) provides that abuse of discretion is not the standard for appellate review of prison sentences.

State v. Wright · filed 2014-07-31(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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of all felony sentences, including consecutive sentences; an appellate court may alter a sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the required findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Bittner · filed 2014-08-08(G)(2)

As a preliminary matter, we note that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is the appellate standard of review for all felony sentences, including consecutive sentences. ... We do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. Furthermore, we do not clearly and convincingly find that Bittner’s sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Pena · filed 2014-08-08(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes that, “[t]he appellate court’s 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 sentence lacks record support, fails to follow sentencing procedure, lacks a sufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law.

State v. Shenfeld · filed 2014-06-23(G)(2)

Initially, we note that 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 felony sentences; abuse of discretion is not the standard.

State v. Trevino · filed 2014-08-01(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes that, “[t]he appellant court’s standard of 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 appellate review of felony sentences.

State v. Grisham · filed 2014-08-18(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) provides that appellate review of felony sentences is not for abuse of discretion.

State v. Norris · filed 2014-08-21(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Williams · filed 2014-08-22(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we do not review felony sentences under an abuse of discretion standard.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the standard for appellate review of felony sentences in place of abuse-of-discretion review.

State v. Steck · filed 2014-08-22(G)(2)

Accordingly, we conclude that the standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), not an abuse of discretion standard under Kalish analysis, provides the framework for appellate review of these sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences; a sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law when the trial court considers the required sentencing factors, properly applies postrelease control, and sentences within the statutory range.

State v. Willis · filed 2014-08-28(G)(2)

Instead, we follow the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which provides in relevant part: ... A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies postrelease control and sentences a defendant within the permissible statutory range.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences, including whether consecutive sentences are clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Cummings · filed 2014-08-28(G)(2)

The standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs all felony sentences. ... Thus, this court reviews Cummings’s consecutive sentences to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Bailey · filed 2014-08-29(G)(2)

In State v. Rodeffer, 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 25574, 25575, and 25576, 2013–Ohio–5759, this court adopted R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) as the appellate standard of review for felony sentences. ... Since we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the findings of the trial court, such that Bailey’s sentence is contrary to law, Bailey’s assigned error is overruled.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences instead of an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Jackson · filed 2014-09-02(G)(2)

As we have previously recognized, felony sentences are no longer reviewed for an abuse of discretion; rather, we review an imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which governs all felony sentences.

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to determine whether the sentence clearly and convincingly complies with applicable law.

State v. Nugent · filed 2014-09-03(G)

When reviewing a felony sentence, an appellate court must first review the sentence to ensure the sentencing court clearly and convincingly complied with the applicable laws.

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

State v. Thomas · filed 2014-09-05(G)(2)

Our review of felony sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225, 997 N.E.2d 629 (1st Dist.). Under that section, we may vacate Mr. Thomas’s sentences only if we “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings or that the sentences are otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Knipp · filed 2014-09-08(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) permits an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence only if it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Woods · filed 2014-09-10(G)(2)

An appellate court may not reverse a sentence unless it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Miller · filed 2014-09-11(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) requires a clear and convincing finding that a felony sentence is contrary to law before it may be reversed.

State v. Martin · filed 2014-09-11(G)(2)

We will not reverse the sentence imposed in this case unless we clearly and convincingly find that it is contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Barker · filed 2014-09-12(G)(2)

The findings under the statutory provisions listed in division (a) of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) are irrelevant to this case; therefore, the threshold issue is whether Barker’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Glenn · filed 2014-09-18(G)(2)

We review felony sentences under the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(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 resentencing. 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. ... Glenn’s sentence is, therefore, not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) 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. Davis · filed 2014-09-25(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing only if the appellate court “clearly and convincingly finds” that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the standard of review for felony sentencing appeals.

State v. Hettmansperger · filed 2014-09-30(G)

Accordingly, this court utilizes R.C. 2953.08(G) as the standard of review in all felony sentencing appeals.

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

State v. Risenburg · filed 2014-09-30(G)(2)

Our review of felony sentencing cases is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) which provides: ... 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. Brown · filed 2014-10-02(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) governs appellate review of felony sentences and permits modification when the court clearly and convincingly finds that specified sentencing findings lack record support or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Long · filed 2014-10-06(G)(2)

Rather, we must use the standard of review as set out in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts reviewing a grant of judicial release to determine whether the record clearly and convincingly supports the required findings or whether the decision is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Walker · filed 2014-10-16(G)(2)

The applicable standard of review is whether the record clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.20(J) or whether the decision is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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. Rich · filed 2014-10-20(G)(2)

Instead, an appellate court may take any action authorized under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) only if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" 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." Crawford at ¶ 7; Pearce at ¶ 25.

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

State v. Hammond · filed 2014-10-23(G)(2)

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.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Battle · filed 2014-10-10(G)(2)

In State v. Rodefer, 2013-Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069 (2d Dist.), we held that we would no longer use an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing a felony sentence, but would apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and permits an appellate court to vacate a sentence it clearly and convincingly finds contrary to law.

State v. Hunter · filed 2014-10-24(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a dispute[d] sentence 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(B) or (D), 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 felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the required sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Cannon · filed 2014-10-30(G)(2)

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

State v. Magallanes · filed 2014-11-03(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. ... Magallanes failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that his sentence was not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts reviewing felony sentences to use a standard other than abuse of discretion.

State v. Kasson · filed 2014-11-06(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) supplies the standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Hensley · filed 2014-11-10(G)(2)

We review felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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 otherwise contrary to law before disturbing a felony sentence.

State v. Goldblum · filed 2014-11-14(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) governs appellate review of jail-time-credit determinations under the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard.

State v. Smith · filed 2014-11-17(G)(2)

We review the trial court’s determination as to the amount of credit to which Smith is entitled under the “clearly and convincingly” contrary to law standard.

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

State v. Thomas · filed 2014-11-20(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides, in part, that when reviewing felony sentences, the appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion; rather, if this court “clearly and convincingly” finds 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 [a reviewing court] may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing.”

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

State v. Grega · filed 2014-11-24(G)(2)

Nevertheless, because H.B. 86 functioned to revive the standard of review set forth under R.C. 2953.08(G), we shall employ this standard in all felony sentence appeals.

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

State v. Moore · filed 2014-11-24(G)(2)

Rather, an appellate court may take any 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." R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)-(b).

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.

State v. Coleman · filed 2014-12-01(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) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Littlejohn · filed 2014-12-04(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 resentencing.”

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

State v. Hayes · filed 2014-12-05(G)(2)

In continuing the review of Hayes’s sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we do not clearly and convincingly find that his sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides for appellate review of whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Pottorf · filed 2014-12-08(G)(2)

Given these circumstances, appellant's sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides the standard of review for felony sentencing appeals.

State v. Reed · filed 2014-12-15(G)(2)

Accordingly, although the trial court has discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory range, this court utilizes R.C. 2953.08(G) as the standard of review in all felony sentencing appeals.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences and does not provide for abuse-of-discretion review.

State v. Leonhart · filed 2014-12-16(G)(2)

When reviewing felony sentences we apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Because the applicable standard of review for felony sentencing cases no longer includes a challenge based on an abuse of discretion, Leonhart’s claim fails.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to find clearly and convincingly that specified findings lack record support or that a felony sentence is contrary to law before modifying or vacating it.

State v. Boyd · filed 2014-12-19(G)(2)

While Boyd received a maximum sentence, it is within the statutory range, and we cannot conclude that it was clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record, or contrary to law, or constituted an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides a two-prong standard for appellate review of felony sentences; abuse of discretion is not the standard.

State v. Thebeau · filed 2014-12-19(G)(2)

We note at the outset that abuse of discretion is no longer the applicable standard of review for appeals of felony sentences. ... Rather, we review felony sentences under the two-prong approach set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the two-prong standard for appellate review of felony sentences.

State v. McClanahan · filed 2014-12-19(G)(2)

Rather, we review felony sentences under the two-prong approach set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the standard of review in all felony sentencing appeals.

State v. Perry · filed 2014-12-22(G)(2)

Accordingly, this court utilizes R.C. 2953.08(G) as the standard of review in all felony sentencing appeals.

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

State v. Elliston · filed 2014-12-22(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. Defiance 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. Butler No. CA2005-10-426, 2006-Ohio-2401, ¶ 4; State v. Tyson, 3d Dist. Allen Nos. 1-04-38 and 1-04-39, 2005-Ohio-1082, ¶ 19, citing R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the standard for appellate review of a felony sentence in place of abuse-of-discretion review.

State v. Rousculp · filed 2014-10-24(G)(2)

In State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069 (2d Dist.), we held that we would no longer use an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing a felony sentence, but would apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Sparks-Arnold · filed 2014-10-24(G)(2)

The findings under the statutory provisions listed in division (a) of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) are irrelevant to this case; therefore, the threshold issue is whether Sparks-Arnold’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. We find that it is not.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the appellate standard for reviewing all felony sentences, including consecutive sentences.

State v. Mayberry · filed 2014-10-24(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is the appellate standard of review for all felony sentences, including consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Breneman · filed 2014-10-24(G)(2)

Under this statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed 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 sentencing court’s required findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Walters · filed 2014-10-31(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.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings before modifying the sentence on that ground.

State v. Hawkins · filed 2014-11-07(G)(2)

Here we do not clearly and convincingly find a lack of support in the record for the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.

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

State v. Fitzgerald · filed 2014-11-07(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) specifies that an appellate court may reduce, increase, modify, vacate and remand a felony sentence if the court clearly and convincingly finds either that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under the specific statutory provisions or “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits 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 findings.

State v. Bailey · filed 2014-11-17(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)(a) permits an appellate court to modify consecutive sentences when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required sentencing findings.

State v. Moore · filed 2014-11-20(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs an appellate court “to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence” and to modify or vacate the sentence “if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.” ... We therefore modify Moore’s sentence to order that he serve all counts but the firearm specification concurrently.

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

State v. Southers · filed 2014-11-21(G)(2)

As a preliminary matter, we note that the appellate standard of review for felony sentences, including consecutive sentences, is set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Furthermore, we do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the consecutive-sentence findings. ... In continuing the review of Southers’s sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we do not clearly and convincingly find that his sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Moore · filed 2014-11-24(G)(2)

Following the enactment of H.B. 86, several appellate districts have adopted the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) when reviewing felony sentences. ... We therefore hold the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the standard for appellate review of a felony sentence: the court reviews the record and may modify or vacate the sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds a specified unsupported finding or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Tate · filed 2014-11-26(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 modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Coleman · filed 2014-11-26(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 resentencing.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn 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. Lunder · filed 2014-12-04(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08, an appellate court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where (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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to examine the entire record, including material beyond the sentencing transcript, to determine whether the record supports the sentencing findings.

State v. Spencer · filed 2014-12-11(G)(2)

Further, courts must review the entire record to determine whether “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The record incorporates more than just the sentencing transcript.

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

State v. Fulford · filed 2014-12-11(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), in reviewing felony sentences, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” Rather, the reviewing court must determine whether it “clearly and convincingly” finds 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) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support specified sentencing findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Morrin · filed 2014-12-19(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a dispute[d] sentence 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(B) or (D), 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. Id. at ¶ 11, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) governs appellate review of whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Minkowski · filed 2014-12-19(G)(2)(b)

Our review of felony sentencing cases is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) which provides: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to overturn a felony sentence that is contrary to law or whose required findings lack clear and convincing support in the record.

State v. Adams · filed 2014-11-17(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of a sentence: (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 * * * ”.

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

State v. Reardon · filed 2014-12-24(G)(2)

When reviewing felony sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides: “The 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 (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 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.” Id.