Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about which sentence best complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Tyes · filed 2026-03-23(G)(2)

This court has consistently applied State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, which holds: “Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 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 that specified findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Ayers · filed 2026-03-26(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 that the record does not support certain specified findings or that the sentence imposed is contrary to law.

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

State v. Seiker · filed 2026-03-27(G)(2)

When reviewing felony sentences, we must apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 7. 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) the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under certain enumerated statutes, or (2) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Id. at ¶ 9, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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. Lewis · filed 2026-04-13(G)(2)

The standard for the review of a felony sentence, including any imposition of a consecutive sentence, is found within R.C. 2953.08(G)(2): ... The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the standard for appellate review of financial sanctions: whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Toth · filed 2026-04-16(G)(2)

When reviewing a trial court’s imposition of financial sanctions, an appellate court applies the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and determines whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) 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. Petaway · filed 2026-04-24(G)

“Under that 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 reversal of a felony sentence only when clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the relevant findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Totty · filed 2026-06-08(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence “only if it determines 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.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to change or remand 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. Samson · filed 2026-06-09(G)(2)

An appellate court may increase, modify, or vacate and remand a judgment only if it clearly and convincingly finds either “(a) the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant” or “(b) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence only when clear and convincing evidence shows that the trial court’s sentencing findings lack record support or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Hammonds · filed 2026-06-17(G)(2)

When a felony sentence is challenged at this court, we are permitted to “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify” the sentence (or to remand the case to the trial court to do any of those things) if and only if “clear[] and convincing[]” evidence indicates that the trial court’s sentencing-related findings are not supported by the record or if the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate consecutive sentences when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Trammel · filed 2026-06-29(G)(2)(a)

The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 24, explained that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) "is plain and unambiguous and permits an appellate court to modify or vacate consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court's consecutive-sentence findings." ... Based upon our review of the record on appeal, including the record of the sentencing hearing and the PSI, we do not find that the trial court's consecutive sentence findings were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

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

State v. Debruce · filed 2016-12-21(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 courts to review felony sentences for clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is contrary to law, rather than for abuse of discretion.

State v. Wilson · filed 2017-10-11(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). ... Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Wilson has not demonstrated by ... clear and convincing evidence that the trial court acted contrary to law when it re-imposed his original sentence.

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

State v. Clouser · filed 2023-05-01(G)(2)

As an initial matter, we note that Mr. Clouser incorrectly states that the standard of appellate review is abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court has held that “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 findings under relevant statutes or that ... the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

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

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

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

State v. Ward · filed 2011-01-24(G)

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

Section 2953.08(G) supplies the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard for reviewing a claim that a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hughey · filed 2013-09-24(G)

Thus, 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. Though Kalish suggests the actual term of imprisonment imposed in a trial court should also be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, appellant's argument challenges that his sentence was contrary to law. Accordingly, we determine if the trial court's sentence was clearly and convincingly 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. Stevens · filed 2013-11-27(G)(2)

Rather, we apply the standard articulated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), 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.’ ”

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. Bailey · filed 2015-07-29(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may modify or vacate Bailey’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) allows an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence for vindictiveness only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Rahab (Slip Opinion) · filed 2017-04-18(G)(2)

We will reverse the sentence only if we clearly and convincingly find the sentence is contrary to law because it ... was imposed as a result of actual vindictiveness on the part of the trial court. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the standard for appellate review of felony sentences and requires a clear and convincing basis to modify or vacate a sentence.

State v. Jordan · filed 2017-07-14(G)(2)

In reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), rather than an abuse of discretion standard.

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

State v. Bass · filed 2017-07-25(G)(2)

“[A]n 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 findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016–Ohio–1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1. This is a deferential standard. ... As such, we cannot conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to law or unsupported by the record.

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

State v. Hennacy · filed 2019-04-10(G)(2)

“In reviewing a felony sentence, [t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Harp · filed 2017-12-18(G)(2)

Rather, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may only "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing" if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence "(a) [t]hat the record does ... not support the sentencing court's findings[,]" or "(b) [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 reverse a felony sentence only upon clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support required statutory findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Rhoads · filed 2018-07-02(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence “only if it determines 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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence when clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Vanmeter · filed 2018-09-04(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence “only if it determines 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.”

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. Roth · filed 2018-09-28(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 change a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support required findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hatcher · filed 2018-10-26(G)(2)

We conclude that the sentences are neither contrary to law nor clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G) requires clear and convincing evidence that a sentence is unsupported by the record before an appellate court will disturb it.

State v. Powell · filed 2018-11-13(G)

As such, Appellant ... has failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the trial court’s sentence was unsupported by the record.

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

State v. Showalter · filed 2018-12-28(G)(2)

Instead, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may only increase, reduce, or modify a sentence or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings, or that the sentence is ... otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing court's decision before an appellate court may modify or vacate the sentence on that ground.

State v. Hayes · filed 2019-04-29(G)(2)

An appellate court may only modify or vacate a sentence if it finds by clear and ... convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing court's decision.

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 contrary to law.

State v. Jones · filed 2019-09-06(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court is permitted to “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 either the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under the applicable sentencing statutes or that the sentence is otherwise “contrary to law.”

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

State v. Mahler · filed 2019-09-20(G)(2)

We review felony sentences under the approach set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio-425, ¶ 11. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an 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: * * * (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

An appellate court may reverse a felony sentence only if clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the required findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Fuentes · filed 2019-10-07(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence “only if it determines 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.”

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

State v. Elsesser · filed 2020-03-02(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 change or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. McCoy · filed 2020-03-12(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 vacate or modify a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the relevant findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. King · filed 2020-04-13(G)(2)

“[A]n 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 findings under 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, including a financial sanction, only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hacker · filed 2020-10-26(G)(2)

We review the imposition of a financial sanction under the same standard of review as we would apply toward any other felony sentence. ... An appellate court “may modify or vacate a felony sentence only if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to ... law.” Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, at ¶ 1, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of a felony sentence only when clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the required findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Watts · filed 2020-12-07(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence “only if it determines 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.”

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

State v. Watkins · filed 2021-01-25(G)(2)

It is instead the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) that governs ... all felony sentences.

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. Fowler · filed 2021-08-11(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or ... 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 change 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. Boucher · filed 2021-10-22(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 change or vacate a felony sentence only 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. Moore · filed 2022-02-11(G)(2)

When reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Under that 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) the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under certain enumerated statutes, including R.C. 2929.13(B); or (2) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 requires appellate review of a sexual predator determination under the clear and convincing evidence standard.

State v. Bishopriggs, Unpublished Decision (9-10-2001) · filed 2001-09-10

So too is the standard of review to be applied by an appellate court when reviewing a trial court's sexual predator determination. R.C. 2953.08 .

Subsection (G) does not preclude appellate courts from reviewing greater-than-minimum or consecutive sentences for abuse of discretion.

State v. McClain, 22551 (1-9-2009) · filed 2009-01-09(G)

I fully agree with Judge Brogan's analysis, and write separately only to point out that per State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , at ¶ 99 , we are no longer precluded by R.C. 2953.08 (G) from employing the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing imposition of greater-than-minimum or consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellant to prove that a sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law when challenging it under that section.

State v. Jones · filed 2011-04-22(G)

In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that when reviewing challenges to sentences pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G), ... an appellant must prove that his sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts to use a clear and convincing evidence standard when reviewing sentences appealed under divisions (A), (B), and (C).

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

A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes’ procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.” State v. Upkins, 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-13-02, 2013-Ohio-3986, ¶ 8, citing 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) * * *).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the record and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Williams · filed 2021-11-30(G)(2)

"Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to uphold consecutive sentence findings unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support them.

State v. Schaus · filed 2025-01-03(G)(2)

Importantly, “[t]he plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial court’s findings must be upheld unless those findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.”

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

State v. Marcum · filed 2025-08-04(G)(2)

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that an appellate court may “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 findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Jones · filed 2017-01-23(G)(2)(a)

Thus, in light of the insufficient evidence supporting Jones’ trafficking conviction and the trial court’s unsupported finding that he has previously served time in prison, we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Accordingly, we reverse Jones’ 18-month sentence for possession of heroin and remand to the trial court for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) identifies the sentencing findings an appellate court may review for record support; it does not include findings under R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Brooks · filed 2016-09-02(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) specifies sentencing provisions that do require the trial court to make explicit findings, for example with regard to consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). ... However, the statute does not identify R.C. 2929.12 as a sentencing statute requiring findings by a trial court: ... 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; [or] (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits an appellate court to reverse a sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s required findings.

State v. Fisher · filed 2014-09-09(G)(2)(a)

We next examine, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b), whether the record by clear and convincing evidence does not support the trial court's findings or is otherwise contrary to law. ... Therefore, we agree with the state that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court's determination that appellee did not have a history of drug abuse under R.C. 2929.12(D)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(1)(a) requires clear and convincing evidence that the record fails to support sentencing findings before an appellate court may reject them.

State v. White, Unpublished Decision (10-21-1999) · filed 1999-10-21(G)(1)(a)

This language is consistent with that contained in R.C. 2929.14 (B), and we cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that the record fails to support the court's findings. See R.C. 2953.08 (G)(1)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires the record to support a sentencing court’s position-of-trust finding under section 2929.13(B).

State v. Garrett · filed 2019-03-04(G)(2)

R.C. 2929.13(B) is one of the "relevant statutes" referenced in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Thus, to withstand an appeal, a sentencing court's finding that an offender held a "position of trust" under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(viii) must be supported by the record.

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

State v. Connor · filed 2020-12-03(G)(2)(a)

However, we cannot find "clearly and convincingly" that "the record does not support the sentencing court's findings" when it chose not sentence Conner to prison.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to vacate or modify a felony sentence when clear and convincing evidence shows that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Gore · filed 2016-11-08(G)(2)(b)

As stated above, this court's standard of review in determining if a trial court's sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law is whether the court considered the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, and sentenced the defendant within the permissible statutory range. ... Thus, the trial court's sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) calls for review of whether a felony sentence is contrary to law, including whether it falls outside the statutory range or the trial court failed to consider the required sentencing factors.

State v. Horner · filed 2016-11-03(G)(2)

Therefore, we review the trial court’s sentence to determine if the sentence is otherwise 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 set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” ... Accordingly, because the sentence was within the permissible statutory range and the trial court considered the required factors of law, appellant’s maximum sentence is not contrary to law.

A sentence is not contrary to law when the trial court considers the required sentencing factors, properly applies postrelease control, and imposes a sentence within the statutory range.

State v. Williams · filed 2014-08-07(G)(2)(b)

A sentence is not contrary to law where the trial court (1) considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11; (2) considered the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12; (3) properly applied postrelease control; and (4) sentenced the defendant within the permissible statutory range.

Section 2953.08’s “contrary to law” provision does not require every sentence to be reviewed under the sentencing guidelines.

State v. Untied, Unpublished Decision (3-5-1998) · filed 1998-03-05(G)(1)(d)

Given the specifics of R.C. 2953.08 on the right to appellate review, we find the "contrary to law" provision does not require that each and every sentence be subjected to review under the guidelines.

Section 2953.08(G)(1)(d) permits appellate review of a sentence as contrary to law when it unreasonably infringes constitutional rights or violates due process.

State v. Green, Unpublished Decision (3-26-1999) · filed 1999-03-26(G)(1)(d)

Quite to the contrary, an appellate court is entrusted with ensuring that the sentence imposed by the trial court was a lawful one. See R.C. 2953.08 (G)(1)(d). A sentence which unreasonably impinges upon a defendant's constitutional rights or which violates the essentials of due process is necessarily a sentence contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(1)(d) provides for reversal of a felony sentence that exceeds the statutory limit.

State v. Maynard, Unpublished Decision (3-16-2000) · filed 2000-03-16(G)(1)(d)

Since this sentence clearly is in excess of the statutory limit and the trial court has discretionary power to sentence only in accordance with law, appellant's sentence for the arson conviction must be reversed.

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

State v. Stockwell, Unpublished Decision (7-26-2001) · filed 2001-07-26(G)(2)(b)

We find no evidence that this conduct was either more or less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense; therefore, we clearly and convincingly find that the sentence imposed on appellant was contrary to law and reverse the court's addition of ten years to the sentence imposed upon appellant. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08 permits a reviewing court to vacate a sentence it finds clearly and convincingly to be contrary to law.

State v. Kaplowitz, Unpublished Decision (8-16-2002) · filed 2002-08-16

Under R.C. 2953.08 , a reviewing court may vacate a sentence imposed by a trial court if it determines, clearly and convincingly, that the sentence is, inter alia , contrary to law. Because this court has determined the trial court erred by applying the current version of R.C. 2903.08 , the sentence imposed by the trial court is contrary to law and is vacated.

A felony sentence is contrary to law under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b) when the sentencing court fails to follow statutory sentencing requirements.

State v. Shiffler, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002) · filed 2002-09-20(G)(2)(b)

To us, anytime a sentencing court does not follow the sentencing statutes, that court has issued a sentence that is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to remand for resentencing when it finds by clear and convincing evidence that a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and is contrary to law.

State v. Simmons, Unpublished Decision (2-19-2003) · filed 2003-02-19(G)(2)

An appellate court may remand a matter on appeal for resentencing if it clearly and convincingly finds that the court's findings are unsupported by the record or that the sentence imposed by the trial court is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2). ... As the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment for a violation of R.C. 2921.331 (A), we find by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant's sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 treats a sentence as contrary to law when the sentencing court ignores an issue or factor a statute requires it to consider; it does not permit an abuse-of-discretion challenge on that ground.

State v. Kennedy, Unpublished Decision (9-12-2003) · filed 2003-09-12(A)(4), (G)(2)

We believe that the phrase "contrary to law" is not that expansive. By expressly depriving appellate courts of an abuse of discretion standard of review, R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) avoids abuse of discretion claims. Instead, "contrary to law" sensibly means a sentencing decision that ignores an issue or factor which a statute requires a court to consider.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits appellate review of whether a felony sentence is contrary to law, including whether the sentencing court ignored an issue or factor a statute required it to consider.

State v. Peck, Unpublished Decision (11-19-2004) · filed 2004-11-19(G)(2)(b)

In determining whether a sentence is "contrary to law", we have defined that term as meaning: {¶ 14} "that a sentencing decision manifestly ignores an issue or factor which a statute requires a court to consider. ... Therefore, we cannot say that Peck's sentence was contrary to the law or unsupported by the record.

A sentence that changes previously affirmed prison terms in violation of the law of the case is contrary to law under § 2953.08(G)(2).

State v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (11-24-2004) · filed 2004-11-24(G)(2)

The fact that the trial court ignored the law of the case as stated by this court in Moore's original appeal, therefore, renders its decision to alter the terms of incarceration on the underlying offenses in order to "knock off 15 years from" Moore's sentence "contrary to law" pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2). Cf., State v. Ali, Cuyahoga App. No. 82076, 2004-Ohio-1782.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) authorizes an appellate court to vacate a sentence contrary to law and remand for resentencing.

State v. Alexander · filed 2005-07-14(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08 grants an appellate court the authority to increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand to the trial court a sentence that is contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). In light of the foregoing discussion, we opt to vacate the trial court’s sentence in this case and remand the cause for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to find a sentence contrary to law when the trial court omits findings required to impose a prison term.

State v. Lockett, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005) · filed 2005-09-30(G)(2)(b)

Thus, the trial court failed to make the findings necessary to an imposition of the discretionary prison term the court imposed on Defendant for these fourth and fifth degree felony offenses. Bradley, supra; State v. Howard (August 4, 2005), Cuyahoga App. No. 85034, 2005-Ohio-4007 . That requires a finding on our part that Defendant's sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court that clearly and convincingly finds a sentence contrary to law to vacate it and remand for resentencing.

State v. Amburgy, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2006) · filed 2006-01-17(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), if an appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that a trial court's sentence is contrary to law, an 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." ... Here, for the reasons discussed in our disposition of appellant's second and third assignments of error, we clearly and convincingly find that the trial court's sentence is contrary to law. ... Having found the trial court's sentence to be contrary to law, we therefore vacate the sentence imposed by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and remand this case to that court for resentencing only.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires a consecutive sentence imposed without findings required by law to be vacated as contrary to law.

State v. Adkins, Unpublished Decision (11-9-2006) · filed 2006-11-09(G)(2)(b)

Nevertheless, because the court failed to make the findings it was required by law to make when the consecutive sentences were imposed, the consecutive sentences were necessarily imposed contrary to law and must be vacated. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence that is contrary to law.

State v. McLeod, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2006) · filed 2006-12-19(G)(2)(b)

Furthermore, this court must reverse a sentence which is contrary to law, R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b), and under Foster's holding, any sentence imposed under R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to take authorized action when any portion of a judgment of conviction is contrary to law, including an award of court-appointed counsel costs made without a finding of ability to pay.

State v. Knight, Unpublished Decision (9-15-2006) · filed 2006-09-15(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) 1 requires an appellate court to take any authorized action if all or a portion of a judgment of conviction is "contrary to law." Clearly, the portion of appellant's judgment of conviction which imposes the costs of court-appointed counsel is "contrary to law" since no finding of appellant's ability to pay was made on the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires an appellate court to vacate felony sentences that exceed the statutory maximums as contrary to law.

State v. Boyd, Ot-06-034 (3-14-2008) · filed 2008-03-14(G)(2)(b)

Because both of the 18-month terms for Counts 6 and 8 and the five year term for Count 7 now exceed the statutory maximums for the offenses, R.C. 2929.14 (A)(4), (5), those sentences must be vacated as contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence as contrary to law when it violates a superior court’s remand order.

State v. Trainer, 08-Ca-04 (2-27-2009) · filed 2009-02-27(G)(2)(b)

We believe a sentence also may be contrary to law, however, if it violates a remand order from a superior court. ... Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b), we hereby modify Trainer's sentence in case number 2005-CR-265 as follows: His six-month prison sentence for drug possession is ordered to be served concurrently with his two-year sentence for failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer.

Section 2953.08(G) requires appellate review of whether a felony sentence is contrary to law; a sentence within the statutory range that violates no sentencing statute is not contrary to law.

State v. Gill · filed 2011-10-06(G)

In the first step of our analysis, we review whether Gill’s sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G). ... Since Gill was sentenced within the statutory range and has failed to demonstrate how his sentence violated Ohio’s sentencing statutes, we do not find that it was contrary to law.

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

State v. Phillips · filed 2011-12-15(G)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing when the sentence is contrary to law.

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

“Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may vacate a sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing if the sentence is contrary to law.” ... We vacate the portion of his sentence that imposes solitary confinement and remand for resentencing.

A sentence within the statutory limits for the offenses is not contrary to law under § 2953.08(A)(4).

State v. Earley · filed 2014-06-19(A)(4)

We also find Earley’s sentence was not contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) because her sentence does not fall outside the statutory limits for the particular degree of offenses.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate and remand a sentence that is contrary to law, but does not permit it to vacate a lawful specification sentence because the sentence for the underlying offense is invalid.

State v. South (Slip Opinion) · filed 2015-09-30(G)(2)

As the appellate court noted, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows appellate courts to “vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if the sentence is contrary to law. ... Because there is no infirmity in South’s specification-related prison term, the appellate court should not have vacated and remanded that sanction for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(A)(4) allows review of a felony sentence as contrary to law when it falls outside the statutory range or the trial court fails to consider the required sentencing purposes and factors.

State v. Hinton · filed 2015-11-25(A)(4)

We therefore review Hinton’s felony maximum sentence to determine whether it is contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4). ... 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 set forth in R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits review of a sentence within the statutory range to claims that the sentencing court failed to fulfill a mandatory statutory obligation.

State v. Gonzalez · filed 2015-11-19(G)(2)

Apart from any claim that the sentencing judge failed to fulfill a statutorily mandated obligation before imposing sentence, a sentence falling within the statutory range is unreviewable.

Section 2953.08(A)(4) limits review of a court’s disapproval of intensive program prison placement to whether the disapproval is contrary to law.

State v. Michalewicz · filed 2015-12-10(A)(4)

Our review in this case is limited to whether the court’s decision to deny Michalewicz participation in an IPP was contrary to law. See generally R.C. 2953.08 (evidencing that the only applicable standard of review is that contained in subsection (A)(4)).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) treats a sentence within the statutory range as not contrary to law when the trial court considered the statutory sentencing principles and factors.

State v. Pritschau · filed 2016-09-30(G)(2)

Our consideration of a felony sentence is governed solely by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2): ... Like a maximum sentence, the imposition of any sentence for an individual offense is not contrary to law if the term falls within the statutory range for that crime, and the record demonstrates that the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing, as stated in R.C. 2929.11, and seriousness and recidivism, as delineated in R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(A)(4) permits an appeal of a felony sentence as contrary to law if the sentence falls outside the statutory range or the trial court fails to comply with sentencing statutes.

State v. Smith · filed 2016-11-10(A)(4)

Under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4), a criminal defendant may appeal his sentence if it is contrary to law, and the statute provides two separate grounds for claiming that a sentence is contrary to law. ... Smith’s sentence was not contrary to law, and the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.

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

State v. Lewis · filed 2017-06-15(G)(2)(b)

We find that Lewis’s sentence is contrary to law. Thus, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we vacate Lewis’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of a felony sentence as contrary to law when the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing and the relevant sentencing factors.

State v. Garner · filed 2017-11-02(G)(2)

We review felony sentences under the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... A sentence may be reversed as contrary to law if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) 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. Arnold · filed 2017-09-15(G)(2)(b)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an 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 if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... Therefore, appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a sentence that is contrary to law and remand that count for resentencing.

State v. Meyerson · filed 2017-11-29(G)(2)

Though Mr. Meyerson has not challenged his sentence on appeal, “‘R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to * * * ‘vacate [a] sentence and remand [a] matter to the sentencing court for resentencing’ if [a] sentence is contrary to law.’” State v. Vitt, 9th Dist. Medina No. 11CA0071-M, 2012-Ohio-4438, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 4, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... This Court, therefore, vacates Mr. Meyerson’s five-year prison sentence on his child endangering count and remands this matter to the trial court for it to resentence him on that count.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) allows an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence that is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, including a sentence outside the statutory range.

State v. Harper · filed 2017-12-13(G)(2)(b)

Since the imposed sentence was outside the permissible statutory range, it was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b); see also State v. Andrew, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110141, 2012-Ohio-1731, ¶ 8-10.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to reverse a sentence for actual vindictiveness when clear and convincing evidence shows that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Satchel · filed 2018-02-16(G)(2)(b)

We review sentencing challenges under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Based on our review of the record, we do not find clear and convincing evidence that the trial court sentenced Satchel out of actual vindictiveness. We therefore find that Satchel’s sentence is not contrary to law, and his assignment of error is not well-taken.

Under § 2953.08(G)(2), a felony sentence within the statutory range is not contrary to law when the trial court considered the required sentencing factors.

State v. Taylor · filed 2018-02-22(G)(2)

Taylor’s sentence did not fall outside of the statutory range for the degree of his offense. We find that Taylor’s sentence is not contrary to law. ... In this case, the record reveals that the trial court considered the required statutory factors in its statement to Taylor and in its sentencing entry.

A felony sentence is contrary to law if it falls outside the statutory range or the trial court failed to consider the sentencing purposes and factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Spencer · filed 2018-10-22(G)(2)(b)

“‘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.’” ... Accordingly, appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) allows an appellate court to act when it clearly and convincingly finds a felony sentence contrary to law, including when the trial court failed to consider the required sentencing factors.

State v. Shabazz · filed 2020-03-05(G)(2)(b)

A sentence is contrary to law if the sentence is more or less than the statutory range or if the trial court does not consider purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12.

A felony sentence within the statutory range is not contrary to law under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b) when the sentencing court evaluates and explains the applicable sentencing factors.

State v. Morris · filed 2020-08-28(G)(2)(b)

The trial court imposed a sentence that falls within the statutory range for felonies of the second and third degree, and indicated and explained its evaluation of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing appellant’s sentence. Therefore, we find that appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

State v. Sipperley · filed 2020-09-25(G)(2)(b)

In State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio- 425, ¶ 15, we recognized that State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, provides guidance in determining whether a sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of a felony sentence as contrary to law when the trial court lacked authority to modify it.

State v. Hunt · filed 2020-12-16(G)(2)

Mr. Hunt’s sentence is “contrary to law” under Section 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Stein · filed 2021-03-12(G)(2)(b)

We, therefore, limit our discussion to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b): whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly “contrary to law” where the trial court expressly states that it has considered the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies postrelease control, and imposes a sentence within the statutory range.

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

State v. Merer · filed 2021-04-30(G)(2)(b)

We review a challenge to a felony sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The statute provides that an 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 if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... For that reason, we find that Merer’s sentence must be vacated, and the matter must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

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

State v. Long · filed 2021-08-04(G)(2)(b)

We review felony 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. ... We find that Long’s sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to provide notice at the sentencing hearing of ODRC’s rebuttal of the presumption as required by subpart (B)(2)(c).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence as contrary to law when the sentencing court fails to give mandatory violent-offender database advisements before sentencing.

State v. Baker · filed 2021-12-27(G)(2)

We therefore find that appellant's sentence is contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and sustain appellant's second assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits appellate review of a felony sentence based on considerations outside the permitted sentencing factors because that sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Bryant · filed 2022-06-07(G)(2)(b)

Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law. Claims that raise these types of issues are therefore reviewable.

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

State v. Printke · filed 2022-08-26(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows us to “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence,” or “vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if we clearly and convincingly find either “(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.” ... Accordingly, because the court failed to properly calculate and set forth the maximum and minimum terms when sentencing appellant, we find that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence it clearly and convincingly finds contrary to law; a sentence within the statutory range based on permissible sentencing factors does not qualify.

State v. Watters · filed 2022-11-14(G)(2)(b)

“The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence * * * if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the sentence is * * * contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). ... Watters’ sentence is within the statutory range for a fifth-degree felony. ... This consideration is not extraneous to the factors contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. ... We find no grounds for challenging Watters’ sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits appellate correction when a sentencing entry omits the maximum term of an indefinite sentence, rendering the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Grier · filed 2023-01-20(G)(2)(b)

We review felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... We may increase, modify, or vacate and remand a judgment only if we clearly and convincingly find either of the following: ... “(b) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” ... The failure to include the maximum term imposed under R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(a) renders a sentence contrary to law.

A felony sentence within the statutory range and based on permitted sentencing factors is not contrary to law under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

State v. Manyo · filed 2023-01-30(G)(2)(b)

The trial court’s exercise of its discretion in imposing these terms was not contrary to law inasmuch as the sentences were statutorily authorized and were not based on factors or considerations extraneous to those set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

A sentence imposed without the mandatory violent offender registry notices is contrary to law under § 2953.08(G)(2) and must be vacated for resentencing.

State v. Delehanty · filed 2023-02-06(G)(2)

We concluded that "the trial court lacked the authority to proceed with sentencing appellant until the notifications were given," and that the sentence was thus contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Id. at ¶ 21-22. We vacated the defendant's sentence and remanded the matter for the purposes of complying with the mandatory advisements of R.C. 2903.42(A)(1) and for resentencing. Id. We do the same here.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence that is contrary to law, including a consecutive reserved-prison term imposed without the required notice.

State v. Crose · filed 2023-03-20(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence “only if it determines 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.” ... Thus, the Supreme Court’s clarification of the consecutive-sentence-notification requirement for reserved-prison terms (to be imposed consecutively to another prison term at the time of revocation) rendered the trial court’s imposition of its 6-month prison term consecutive to the sentence in her Richland County case contrary to law.

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

State v. Menefee · filed 2023-04-06(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) 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 (2) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.” ... Accordingly, we affirm Menefee’s convictions but vacate the sentence imposed on Menefee’s burglary conviction and remand this case to the trial court for the limited purpose of imposing an indefinite sentence on Menefee’s burglary conviction as required by the Reagan Tokes Law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) treats a felony sentence that exceeds statutory authority as contrary to law.

State v. Perez-Echeniquez · filed 2025-02-24(G)(2)(b)

The state concedes, and we agree, that the one-year jail term the trial court imposed upon Perez-Echeniquez exceeded the trial court's statutory authority under R.C. 2929.16(A)(2), thereby rendering the trial court's sentence otherwise contrary to law in violation of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

State v. Kerns · filed 2025-05-07(G)(2)(b)

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. ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... Thus, we find that Kerns's sentence was contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to alter a felony sentence that violates a statute or legal regulation as contrary to law.

State v. Parsons · filed 2025-04-14(G)(2)(b)

The phrase “otherwise contrary to law” in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) means “in violation of statute or legal regulations at a given time.”

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

State v. Harsha · filed 2025-09-29(G)(2)(b)

We must review Harsha’s sentence pursuant to the dictates of R.C. 2953.08(G). ... 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. ... Because the trial court failed to notify Harsha of the mandatory indefinite sentence notifications, we remand the matter to the trial court for Harsha to be resentenced.

A felony sentence that fails to comply with a mandatory sentencing provision is contrary to law.

State v. Wilson · filed 2026-01-23(G)(2)(b)

A sentence that does not comply with a mandatory provision of the sentencing statutes is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is contrary to law.

State v. Willis · filed 2026-02-12(G)(2)(b)

An appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence if it is “contrary to law” under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

State v. Bankston · filed 2026-02-20(G)(2)

Therefore, Bankston’s sentence is contrary to law and subject to being vacated under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to vacate and remand a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law, including an incorrectly imposed post-release-control term.

State v. Wang · filed 2026-03-13(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that either of the following apply: (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” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” ... As the trial court did not accurately notify Wang as to the post-release control term to which he would be subject, the post-release control portion of his sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court reviewing a sentence to examine the record, including oral or written statements and presentence investigation reports.

State v. Baker · filed 2024-10-21(F)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(F), upon appeal of the sentence, we are required to review the record, including any oral or written statements and presentence investigation reports.

Section 2953.08(F) includes presentence reports, the trial record, and sentencing hearing statements in the record for felony sentence review.

State v. Arnold · filed 2024-09-13(F)

Under R.C. 2953.08(F), the “record” includes, among other things, any presentence or other report submitted to the trial court, the trial record in the case, and any oral or written statements made by or submitted to the trial court at the sentencing hearing.

Section 2953.08(F) excludes a co-defendant's trial transcript from the record the appellate court may review when evaluating a sentence.

State v. Laser, Unpublished Decision (4-10-1998) · filed 1998-04-10(F)

Although a co-defendant's trial transcript is not part of the record we may review on appeal under R.C. 2953.08 (F), other clear and convincing evidence supports the court's determination.

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court reviewing a sentence to consider a victim impact statement submitted in writing before sentencing as part of the record.

State v. Boyd, Unpublished Decision (9-27-1999) · filed 1999-09-27(F)

In reviewing a sentence on appeal, R.C. 2953.08 (F) sets forth the record this Court must review. ... Accordingly, in addition to the items contained in the original record herein, we have reviewed the victim impact statement. This was the only other "presentence, psychiatric or other investigative" report presented to the court in writing before the imposition of sentence.

Section 2953.08(F)(1) requires an appellate court to review a written presentence report submitted to the trial court before sentencing.

State v. Eichner, Unpublished Decision (10-8-1999) · filed 1999-10-08(F)(1)

However, appellee's suggestion that this court cannot consider the presentence investigation report "because it was never made part of the record", must also be rejected. R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1) expressly provides that this court shall review "any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed."

Section 2953.08(F)(1) requires the presentence report to be included in the record on appeal from a felony sentence.

State v. Smith · filed 2000-01-03(F)(1)

That is, the presentence report is necessarily part of the record under R.C. 2953.08(F).

Section 2953.08 requires an appellate court reviewing a sentence to consider the presentence investigation report, trial record, and statements made at sentencing.

State v. Carr, Unpublished Decision (1-31-2000) · filed 2000-01-31(F)(1)-(3)

When deciding whether to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court, R.C. 2953.08 requires us to review the presentence investigation report, the trial record, and any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing when the sentence was imposed. See R.C. 2953.08 (F) (1)-(3).

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court deciding a felony sentence appeal to independently review the record.

State v. Evans, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2000) · filed 2000-03-10(F)

In determining the appeal, an appellate court is required to independently review the record. R.C. 2953.08 (F).

Section 2953.08(F) includes a written presentence investigation report submitted before sentencing in the record for a sentence appeal.

State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2000) · filed 2000-06-07(F)

When a sentence is challenged, the record on appeal consists of: Any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed. ... R.C. 2953.08 (F). ... Miller did not cause the presentence investigation report to be filed with the court of appeals. As a result, it is not part of the record on appeal.

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to consider the presentence investigation report, trial record, and statements made to or by the sentencing court.

State v. Agnes, Unpublished Decision (10-06-2000) · filed 2000-10-06(F)

In deciding whether to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court, R.C. 2953.08 (F) requires us to review, among other things, the presentence investigation report, the trial record, and any oral or written statements made to or by the court when the sentence was imposed.

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court to independently review the record when deciding a felony-sentence appeal.

State v. Obregon, Unpublished Decision (8-25-2000) · filed 2000-08-25(F)

In determining the appeal, an appellate court is required to independently review the record. R.C. 2953.08 (F).

Section 2953.08(F)(1) includes the presentence investigation report in the appellate record when appropriate.

State v. Swaney, Unpublished Decision (10-4-2000) · filed 2000-10-04(F)(1)

This includes the presentence investigation report where appropriate. R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1).

Section 2953.08(F) requires review of presentence and psychiatric reports and statements made at the sentencing hearing when reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Baldwin, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2001) · filed 2001-06-29(F)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (F), our review of the record shall include any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report submitted to the court in writing prior to the imposition of sentence, and any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we have reviewed the documents in the record, including the presentence report and the psychiatric evaluation, and the transcript of the sentencing hearing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a reviewing court to examine the sentencing record, including the findings underlying the sentence; missing findings can prevent that review.

State v. Bush, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2001) · filed 2001-03-23(G)(2)

On the state of this record, a reviewing court cannot fulfill its obligation to "review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence * * * given by the sentencing court." R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) (modified by H.B. No. 331, effective Oct. 10, 2000); see, also, State v. Edmondson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 715 N.E.2d 131 .

Section 2953.08(F) requires the record in a criminal sentence appeal to include written investigative reports submitted before sentencing, the trial record, and statements made at the sentencing hearing.

State v. Kelly · filed 2001-08-20(F)

In an appeal of a criminal sentence, the record shall include any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed, the trial record in the case, and all oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing. R.C. 2953.08(F).

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to examine the presentence report.

State v. Adkins · filed 2001-07-16(F)

This court is required to examine the presentence report when reviewing appellant’s sentence. R.C. 2953.08(F). In the instant case, however, no presentence report was completed.

Section 2953.08(F) requires a reviewing court deciding whether to disturb a sentence to review the presentence investigation report, trial record, and statements made to or by the sentencing court.

State v. Painter, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2002) · filed 2002-03-29(F)

In determining whether a sentence imposed by the trial court should be disturbed, R.C. 2953.08 (F) requires us to review the presentence investigation report, the trial record, and any oral or written statements made to or by the court when it ordered the sentence.