Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

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

State v. Weideman · filed 2014-12-31(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) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence only on the specified clear-and-convincing grounds, rather than for abuse of discretion.

State v. Bragg · filed 2015-01-09(G)(2)

“Notably, we do not review the trial court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion.”

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 record does not support the specified sentencing findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Edwards · filed 2015-01-16(G)(2)

We may only increase, modify, or vacate and remand a judgment if we clearly and convincingly find that: (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14, * * *,” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Curry · filed 2015-01-26(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) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hamilton · filed 2015-01-30(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Stoffer · filed 2015-01-30(G)(2)

We review all felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify 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. McElhaney · filed 2015-01-30(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). 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) governs appellate review of a driver’s license suspension imposed as part of a felony sentence.

State v. Frazier · filed 2015-01-30(G)(2)

We reiterate that we have reviewed the license suspension portion of Frazier’s sentence under the standard of review set forth in Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069, in which we held that we would no longer use an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing felony sentences, but would apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Brown · filed 2015-02-02(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) supplies the standard of review for felony sentencing appeals.

State v. Purtilo · filed 2015-07-28(G)

“[T]his 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 standard when an appellate court determines whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Ernest · filed 2015-07-28(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G) and the clear and convincing standard should be applied to determine whether a felony sentence is 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 the specified sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Ethley · filed 2015-08-13(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) requires appellate courts reviewing felony sentences to use its statutory standard rather than an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. English · filed 2015-08-13(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’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate review of whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Reeves · filed 2015-08-13(G)(2)

We do not review a trial court's sentence for an abuse of discretion. Instead, we must determine whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 supplies a standard for reviewing felony sentences: the appellate court considers whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record or contrary to law, including whether the trial court properly applied sentencing law involving discretion.

State v. Wells · filed 2015-08-26

Instead, we referred to the statutory provisions found in R.C. 2929.11, R.C. 2929.12, and R.C. 2953.08, and concluded that a felony sentence will be upheld as long as it is neither clearly nor convincingly unsupported by the record nor contrary to law. ... Therefore, we will review the sentence in the case before us to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record, or contrary to law, recognizing that reviewing the trial court’s proper application of law involving the use of discretion is a part of the sentencing review process.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate review of a judicial release grant for clear and convincing support of the required findings or a decision contrary to law.

State v. Nichter · filed 2015-08-27(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 the record does not support specified findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Carson · filed 2015-09-04(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), 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) supplies the standard for reviewing a felony sentence on appeal, including whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Artz · filed 2015-09-18(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). ... Considering Artz’s original offenses leading to the imposition of community control (domestic violence and possession of marijuana), the community control violations, and Artz’s criminal history, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.

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

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

When reviewing the imposition of consecutive sentences, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the 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 [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)].’” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

State v. Ahlers · filed 2015-01-16(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... We find that appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of whether applicable sentencing findings lack record support or a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Flannery · filed 2015-01-30(G)(2)

Based upon the foregoing and pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we find that the disputed sentence was not shown to be based upon applicable statutory findings not supported by the record and was not otherwise clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Schall · filed 2015-07-20(D)(3)

Thus, relying on the rationale more fully set forth in Hawkins, we conclude that the trial court’s sentence is not subject to appellate review and appellate counsel’s third potential assignment of error lacks merit.

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

State v. Hilliard · filed 2015-08-06(D)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), we lack statutory authority to review Hilliard’s sentence for aggravated murder on an evidentiary basis.

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

State v. Duhamel · filed 2015-08-06(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may reverse, vacate, or modify a consecutive sentence if (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). Obviously, an unconstitutional sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. R.S. · filed 2015-08-07(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court hearing an appeal from a judgment imposing consecutive sentences “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 * * *” if it “clearly and convincingly finds” that the sentence is either: (1) not supported by the record pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or (2) it is “otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to examine compliance with applicable sentencing rules and statutes to determine whether a sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Williams · filed 2015-08-10(G)(2)

Nevertheless, we are required by the Ohio Supreme Court, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), to “* * * examine the sentencing court's compliance with all the applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law."

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

State v. C.G. · filed 2015-08-13(G)(2)

An appellate court may only modify or vacate and remand a sentence imposed by a trial court "if it clearly and convincingly finds either * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or * * * [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... As such, appellant's consecutive sentence is not contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(1) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when 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. Pluhar · filed 2015-08-20(G)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(1) provides, in part, that 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 “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” or that “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then this 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) permits an appellate court to alter a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Cruz · filed 2015-08-28(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... Therefore, we find that appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law.

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 the required sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Abdullah · filed 2015-08-31(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 either: (1) the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under certain enumerated statutes, if applicable; or (2) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to reverse, vacate, or modify a consecutive sentence 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. Daniels · filed 2015-09-03(G)(2)

An appellate court may reverse, vacate, or modify a consecutive sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that either (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.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of consecutive-sentence findings when the appellate court finds them clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Thomas · filed 2015-09-18(G)(2)

In reviewing consecutive-sentence findings, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we must find that those ... findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record before we may reverse.

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 record does not support mandatory sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Miller · filed 2015-01-30(G)(2)

Rather, we may modify or vacate Mr. Miller’s sentences only 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.); R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides a two-prong framework for appellate review of felony sentences.

State v. Costilla · filed 2015-01-30(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for appellate review of whether a sentence is unsupported by the record or contrary to law.

State v. Eager · filed 2015-08-31(G)(2)

A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; 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)(b) permits a reviewing court to modify or vacate a jail-time-credit award it clearly and convincingly finds contrary to law.

State v. Bowden · filed 2015-09-16(G)(2)(b)

A reviewing court may modify or vacate the trial court’s jail-time-credit computation if it clearly and convincingly finds that the awarded credit is contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b); see also Hargrove at ¶ 8.

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

State v. Vales · filed 2015-09-24(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)(b) requires clear and convincing grounds to find a felony sentence contrary to law; abuse of discretion is not the appellate standard.

State v. Henry · filed 2015-09-30(G)(2)(b)

In sum, this court does not clearly and convincingly find that Appellant’s sentence is contrary to law as required by the statute governing the appeal. See R.C. 2953.08 (A)(1)(a) (appeal of right for maximum prison term), (A)(4) (appeal of right for sentence that is contrary to law), (G)(2)(b) (providing standard of review and adding: “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. Green · filed 2015-10-01(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’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of a criminal sentence only if it is contrary to law or the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Balbi · filed 2015-10-01(G)(2)

Our ability to review sentencing decisions by a trial court is circumscribed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). That section makes it clear that our standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. Rather, a criminal sentence can be reversed only if it is “contrary to law” or if 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 modify or vacate a felony sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support required sentencing findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Dabney · filed 2015-10-07(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may modify or vacate Dabney’s sentence only if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the mandatory sentencing findings, if any, or that the 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 the standard.

State v. Jones · filed 2015-10-09(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Wood · filed 2015-10-14(G)(2)

Under that statute, we may modify or vacate a sentence only if we “clearly and convincingly find” that the record does not support the sentencing court’s mandatory findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Gilbert · filed 2015-10-30(G)(2)

We reiterate that we have reviewed Gilbert’s sentence under the standard of review set forth in Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069, in which we held that this court would no longer use an abuse-of-discretion standard of review for felony sentences, but rather apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) allows an appellate court to modify a felony sentence it clearly and convincingly finds contrary to law.

State v. Norquest · filed 2015-11-02(G)(2)(b)

This court utilizes R.C. 2953.08(G) as the standard of review in all felony sentencing appeals. ... Accordingly, the additional 60-day portion of appellant’s sentence on the underlying offense exceeded the trial court’s authority under R.C. 4511.19 and is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Gurkovich · filed 2015-11-05(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) governs appellate review of felony sentences; abuse of discretion is no longer the applicable standard.

State v. Mojica · filed 2015-11-06(G)(2)

Appellate felony sentencing review is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). It delineates the proper appellate standard of review in felony sentencing cases. The statute establishes that abuse of discretion is no longer the applicable standard of review for felony sentencing.

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 record does not support mandatory sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Finnell · filed 2015-11-25(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G) requires a defendant challenging a felony sentence to show that it is contrary to law; alleging an abuse of discretion is insufficient.

State v. Friday · filed 2015-11-25(G)

Appellant’s assignment of error argues an abuse of discretion, but appellant is forced by R.C. 2953.08(G) to demonstrate that the court’s decision not to depart from a presumption of prison is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to clearly and convincingly find a felony sentence contrary to law before modifying or vacating it.

State v. Wilson · filed 2015-10-13(G)(2)

Instead, an appellate court may only take action authorized by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to change 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. Back · filed 2015-10-26(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) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Lewis · filed 2015-11-06(G)(2)

We outlined the required analysis under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which establishes that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Id. at ¶ 11.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts reviewing felony sentences to use its statutory standard rather than an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Stouffer · filed 2015-11-09(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G) governs felony sentencing issues on appeal and provides: ... 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 if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required consecutive-sentence findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Griggs · filed 2015-11-09(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 * * * 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, or * * * [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b).

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

State v. Milner · filed 2015-11-24(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.”

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

State v. Clark · filed 2015-11-24(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.”

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 specified findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Martin · filed 2015-12-04(G)(2)

We have addressed our role in reviewing sentencing orders by recognizing 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) .” State v. Rodeffer, 2013–Ohio–5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.) “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 a felony sentence if it is otherwise contrary to law or if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Jacobs · filed 2015-10-29(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 * * *.” ... Accordingly, we find Appellant's sentence herein is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to clearly and convincingly find that the relevant sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law before disturbing a felony sentence.

State v. Timpe · filed 2015-12-07(G)(2)

In light of the standard of appellate review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G), we do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court's finding that the presumption in favor of prison time was not overcome or rebutted, or that appellant's sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. McClure · filed 2015-12-14(G)(2)

Instead, an appellate court may only take action authorized by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts to review disputed felony sentences for unsupported statutory findings or a sentence otherwise contrary to law, rather than for abuse of discretion.

State v. Kinsinger · filed 2015-12-18(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of disputed felony sentences. Ohio’s controlling statutory framework establishes that the standard of review is not whether the trial court abused its discretion. Rather, in order to determine whether an increase, reduction, modification, or vacation and remand of a disputed trial court felony sentence is required, the appellate court must determine whether there are any applicable statutory findings of the sentencing court that were not supported by the record or whether the sentence was 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 specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Tabor · filed 2015-12-07(G)(2)

An appellate court may modify or vacate a criminal 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, 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) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the judge when the sentence complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Lambert · filed 2015-12-11(D)(1)

In the present case, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes us from reviewing Lambert’s prison sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts to review the record and permits them to modify or vacate a felony sentence when they clearly and convincingly find that specified findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. DiGiorgi · filed 2015-12-14(G)(2)

In reviewing felony sentences, we apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). That section directs the 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 * * * (a) [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code * * * [or] (b) [t]hat 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 relevant sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Ruvolo · filed 2015-12-24(G)(2)

This court reviews a trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences under the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2): ... 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. ... Appellant has not demonstrated that the consecutive sentencing findings are clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Hewitt · filed 2015-12-30(G)(2)

However, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) specifically states 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 modify or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that specified sentencing findings lack record support or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Johnson · filed 2016-01-04(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Neal · filed 2016-01-06(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 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) permits 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. Allen · filed 2016-01-07(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court must “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.” 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. ... Therefore, we decline to find that Allen’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires appellate courts reviewing consecutive sentences to examine the record and the findings supporting the sentence under a clear-and-convincing standard.

State v. Leet · filed 2016-01-15(G)(2)(a)

“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the 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.’” Bonnell at ¶ 28. ... Upon review of the record, particularly the factual circumstances underlying the charges of which Leet was convicted, we find no arguably meritorious claim that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to change or remand a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law or rests on required findings unsupported by the record.

State v. Whetstone · filed 2016-01-15(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that either the disputed sentence is contrary to law or if it finds that the disputed sentence was based upon required statutory findings not supported by the record.

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. Coleman · filed 2016-01-28(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may modify or vacate a sentence only if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the mandatory sentencing findings, or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. A sentence is “contrary to law” if the sentencing court failed to make the findings required to order consecutive service of sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37.

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

State v. Hill · filed 2016-02-01(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise 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 record does not support the specified sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Ziska · filed 2016-02-04(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides 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(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the court when the sentence complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Williams · filed 2016-02-05(D)(1)

Under R.C. 2953.08(D), a sentence that has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution and imposed by a sentencing judge is not subject to appellate review if it is authorized by law. ... Because the sentences comported with all mandatory-sentencing provisions, they were authorized by law. Consequently, this court is without jurisdiction to review the sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence that is contrary to law, including one imposed without consideration of the statutory sentencing factors.

State v. Price · filed 2016-02-18(G)(2)

When reviewing felony sentences, this court may increase, reduce, modify a sentence, or vacate and remand for resentencing if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing court’s statutory findings, if applicable, or the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). A sentence is contrary to law if (1) the sentence falls outside the statutory range for the particular degree of offense, or (2) the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12.

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

State v. Crank · filed 2016-02-22(G)(2)

Instead, an appellate court may only take action authorized by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" that the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Domokos · filed 2016-02-26(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Robinson · filed 2016-03-04(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 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) directs appellate courts to review felony sentences for clear and convincing evidence that the relevant findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Winstead · filed 2015-12-22(G)(2)

Accordingly, the trial court had discretion to impose a prison term, and we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record failed to support the court’s findings in this regard, or that the sentence, therefore, was 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 specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Dixon · filed 2015-12-29(G)(2)

Again, our review of sentencing decisions is whether we can clearly and convincingly find that the court’s findings are unsupported by the record, or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not require the record to contain clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court’s sentencing findings.

State v. Whitt · filed 2016-03-04(G)(2)

As this court has explained, the clear-and-convincing standard in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not say the record must contain clear and convincing evidence to support a trial court’s findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence if the sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Williams · filed 2015-12-21(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) provides in pertinent part that we may reverse the trial court if the sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Ramey · filed 2015-12-22(G)(2)

Thus, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to review the entire record to determine if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s statutory findings or if the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Mabra · filed 2015-12-29(G)(2)

Instead, we apply the standard of review in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which states that, after reviewing the record: ... 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. ... We also cannot find that the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(1) directs appellate courts to review felony sentences under a clear-and-convincing standard rather than for abuse of discretion.

State v. Smith · filed 2016-01-14(G)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(1) provides, in part, that 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 “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” or that “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then this 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) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the specified sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Black · filed 2016-01-21(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) directs appellate review of felony sentences under a clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard.

State v. Shindeldecker · filed 2016-01-25(G)(2)

This court reviews 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) permits an appellate court to change or vacate a felony sentence 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. Campbell · filed 2016-02-03(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) permits an appellate court to change or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Morrow · filed 2016-02-04(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise 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 the record does not support specified sentencing findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Guy · filed 2016-02-05(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), 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) 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. Langford · filed 2016-02-08(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 clear and convincing grounds to find a felony sentence contrary to law.

State v. Daniel · filed 2016-02-29(G)(2)

Given that Daniel was unable to explain or change his pattern of behavior involving minors, his high risk of re-offending, and that he committed these offenses while on post-release control for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor, this court cannot conclude that maximum consecutive sentences were clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to review the entire record and determine whether it clearly and convincingly finds that the record fails to support the sentencing court’s statutory findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Weaver · filed 2016-03-03(G)(2)

Thus, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to review the entire record to determine if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s statutory findings or if the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 limits appellate review of a felony sentence to whether the record clearly and convincingly supports the required sentencing findings and whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Pultz · filed 2016-01-29(G)(2)(a)

When a felony sentence is appealed, the scope of review is limited to whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the sentencing ... court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) that consecutive sentences should be imposed and whether the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of a felony sentence as contrary to law when the defendant shows by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court failed to consider or follow the proper sentencing statutes.

State v. Cooper · filed 2016-02-08(G)(2)

If the defendant can show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the trial court failed to consider or follow the proper statutes, the sentence is subject to reversal as contrary to law. See id. at ¶ 31-33; 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 lacks record support, fails to follow sentencing procedure, lacks a sufficient basis for imprisonment, or is contrary to law.

State v. Redman · filed 2016-03-07(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; 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)(1) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence 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. Karlowicz · filed 2016-03-10(G)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(1) provides, in part, that 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 “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” or that “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then this 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) requires an appellate court to clearly and convincingly find a felony sentence contrary to law before modifying or vacating it.

State v. Chisenhall · filed 2016-03-14(G)(2)

Instead, an appellate court may only take action authorized by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) if the court "clearly and convincingly finds" that the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Amey · filed 2016-03-17(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), in reviewing felony sentences, 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) supplies the standard of review for felony-sentencing appeals.

State v. Skaggs · filed 2016-03-21(G)

This court reviews felony-sentencing appeals using the standard set forth under R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08 limits appellate review of a felony sentence to whether clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s findings and whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Lincoln · filed 2016-03-25

The standard of appellate review of felony sentences is set forth in R.C. 2953.08, and this court outlined that standard of review in State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio-425. Our review of a felony sentence is limited to determining whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s findings and whether the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) provides for appellate review of felony sentences to determine whether they are contrary to law.

State v. Bell · filed 2016-03-30(G)

R.C. 2953.08(G) provides that appellate courts review felony sentences to determine if they are 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. McGinnis · filed 2016-03-31(G)(2)

This court utilizes R.C. 2953.08(G) as the standard of review in all felony sentencing appeals. ... The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to presume a felony sentence is correct unless clear and convincing evidence shows it is contrary to law.

State v. Hamilton · filed 2016-03-31(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) supplies the deferential standard for reviewing a felony sentence even when the trial court was required to consider sentencing factors but make no statutory findings.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2016-04-01(G)(2)

Mitchell’s sentence was imposed after consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12; no statutory findings were required. Nevertheless, in accordance with Marcum, we review the trial court’s sentence under the deferential standard articulated in R.C. 2953.08(G).

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. Castleberry · filed 2016-04-14(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) governs appellate review of felony sentences and bars the abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing-term challenges.

State v. Peck · filed 2016-04-18(G)(2)

We review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which governs all felony sentences. ... An appellate court "may not apply the abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing-term challenges."

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

State v. Casada · filed 2016-04-21(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) requires appellate courts reviewing felony sentences to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Weideman · filed 2016-04-25(G)

Our standard of review in all felony sentencing appeals is whether the trial court clearly and convincingly entered a sentence that is contrary to law.

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 mandatory sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Hendrix · filed 2016-04-27(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Dawson · filed 2016-05-02(G)(2)

The Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Marcum, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-1002, held that appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) when reviewing felony sentences. ... In view of the foregoing, we do not clearly and convincingly find that the trial court’s sentence was contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 supplies the standard for appellate review of felony sentences.

State v. Hatfield · filed 2016-05-04(G)(2)

We now review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08.

Section 2953.08(G) directs appellate courts to review felony sentences for whether they are contrary to law.

State v. Jones · filed 2016-05-04(G)

R.C. 2953.08(G) provides that appellate courts review felony sentences to determine if they are contrary to law.

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

State v. Hamm · filed 2016-05-12(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Cornelison · filed 2016-05-17(G)(2)

In State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, we held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2) unsupported by the record. ... The judgment of the court of appeals in the instant case is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of Marcum.

Section 2953.08(A)(4) permits review of a felony sentence as contrary to law only when the appellant preserves and supports that claim.

State v. Montanez-Roldon · filed 2016-05-19(A)(4)

Without evidence provided on the record at sentencing upon which to base an R.C. 2929.11(B) argument on appeal, and without any other arguments for us to consider for the purpose of declaring Montanez-Roldon’s sentence contrary to law, we cannot review his final sentence as being contrary to law pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(A)(4).

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 sentencing court’s findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Spano · filed 2016-05-23(G)(2)

Post-S.B. 86, in reviewing felony sentences, this court applies the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Under that standard, the appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) applies a clear and convincing standard when an appellate court decides whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Sturgill · filed 2016-05-31(G)

“R.C. 2953.08(G) and the clear and convincing standard should be applied to determine whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to determine whether clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Fox · filed 2016-06-03(G)(2)(a)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we consider in the present context whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences. ... In the case sub judice, upon review, we hold the trial court adequately reviewed the case pursuant to our remand, and we find no clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for purposes of imposing consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Plymale · filed 2016-06-03(G)(2)

When reviewing felony sentences, we apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts to determine whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support a felony sentence or its underlying findings.

State v. Houston · filed 2016-06-09(G)(2)

This court must review the record and determine if the sentences imposed by the court and any findings they are built on are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. Id. at ¶ 22; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Koehler · filed 2016-06-13(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 that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to affirm a consecutive sentence unless 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. Smith · filed 2016-06-17(G)(2)

In this case, we do not clearly and convincingly find either of the following: (1) that the record does not support the trial court findings, or (2) that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Since we cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing decision, we must affirm.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the clearly and convincingly contrary-to-law standard for appellate review of a jail-time credit determination.

State v. Moore · filed 2016-06-20(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the clearly-and-convincingly-contrary-to-law standard for appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Figgs · filed 2016-06-22(G)(2)

We do not find that the imposition of a prison term for the marijuana-trafficking offense was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); see also State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225, 997 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate or modify a felony sentence only 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. Williams · filed 2016-06-23(G)(2)

Based on this court's review, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court's findings under the relevant statutes 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 when it clearly and convincingly finds that specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Steiner · filed 2016-06-27(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Phillips · filed 2016-06-29(G)(2)

Therefore, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may modify or vacate the challenged sentences only if we clearly and convincingly find that they are contrary to law.

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

State v. Thompson · filed 2016-06-30(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) governs appellate review of a felony sentence and requires review for a sentence clearly contrary to law or clearly and convincingly based on relevant statutory findings unsupported by the record.

State v. Pan · filed 2016-06-30(G)(2)

Rather, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs our review of this matter. We must review the record to determine whether the disputed sentence was clearly contrary to law or clearly and convincingly based upon relevant statutory findings not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G) directs appellate courts to review felony sentences to determine whether they are contrary to law.

State v. Ward · filed 2016-06-30(G)

R.C. 2953.08(G) provides that appellate courts review felony sentences to determine if they are contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the standard for appellate review of felony sentences rather than an abuse of discretion standard.

State v. Coffman · filed 2016-06-30(G)(2)

Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Ohio's recent holding in State v. Marcum, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 7, this court will review a felony sentence using the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08, and will no longer apply the abuse of discretion standard under State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912.

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

State v. Julious · filed 2016-07-05(G)(2)

Rather, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) compels an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that "the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." Id. at ¶ 1.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence on a clear and convincing finding that the record does not support the required findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Harp · filed 2016-07-11(G)(2)

Rather, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) compels an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that "the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." Id. at ¶ 1.

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

State v. Brandenburg · filed 2016-07-11(G)(2)

According to Marcum, and as this court has previously held, the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) shall govern all felony sentences. ... 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 an appellate court to apply the clear and convincing standard when deciding whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Bryant · filed 2016-07-11(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G) and the clear and convincing standard should be applied to determine whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Castle · filed 2016-07-15(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), 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) supplies the standard for appellate review of a felony sentence: the court may modify or vacate it when it clearly and convincingly finds that the relevant findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Cooper · filed 2016-07-22(G)(2)

Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Ohio's recent holding in State v. Marcum, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 7, this court will review a felony sentence using the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08, and will no longer apply the abuse of discretion standard under State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to change 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. Young · filed 2016-07-22(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed 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, 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) governs appellate review of disputed felony sentences under a standard other than abuse of discretion.

State v. Clark · filed 2016-07-29(G)(2)

It is well-established that appellate court review of a disputed felony sentence is no longer conducted pursuant to an abuse of discretion analysis. Rather, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs our review of this matter.

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

State v. Braun · filed 2016-08-01(G)(2)

In reviewing a felony sentence, “[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) requires appellate review of a felony sentence under a clear-and-convincing standard, rather than for abuse of discretion.

State v. Velazquez · filed 2016-08-01(G)(2)

Upon review, we do not find clear and convincing evidence that the trial court violated R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) or (b) in sentencing appellant.

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 findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Armstrong · filed 2016-08-05(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), 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 find sentencing error 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. Brown · filed 2016-08-18(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides, in part, that when reviewing felony sentences, the appellate court’s standard of 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 conclude that the court erred in sentencing.

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

State v. Albright · filed 2016-08-18(G)(2)

An appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s finding under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the standard for reviewing felony sentences on appeal instead of an abuse of discretion standard.

State v. Chaney · filed 2016-08-19(G)(2)

The Supreme Court of Ohio has made clear that felony sentences are no longer reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard but, instead, in accordance with the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the appellate standard for reviewing whether a felony sentence lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Fleeton · filed 2016-08-19(G)(2)

Regarding sentencing, we review a felony sentence to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record or is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); State v. Marcum, Slip Opinion 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1.

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

State v. Baldwin · filed 2016-08-22(G)(2)

This court reviews 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) permits an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence that is not contrary to law only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence.

State v. Lowry · filed 2016-08-23(G)(2)

After Lowry concedes that his sentence is not contrary to law, we may reverse the sentence only if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s sentence.