Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to examine the presentence investigation report and any psychological evaluations included in that report or the trial court record.

State v. Fisher, Unpublished Decision (4-29-2002) · filed 2002-04-29(F)(1)-(3)

However, the presentence investigation report is already included in the record the appellate court is required to examine when reviewing a trial court's sentencing determination. See R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1)-(3). Any psychological evaluations included in the presentence investigation report and in the trial court's record are also part of the record this court is required to review. See id .

Section 2953.08 requires a sentencing record sufficient for meaningful appellate review and permits remand for resentencing when the record is inadequate.

State v. Longnecker, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2002) · filed 2002-06-07(G)(2)

The appellate review provisions of the new statute require more than a sentence be within the statutory limits; a sentence that fails to set forth R.C. 2929.12 factors that persuaded the trial court to impose a prison sentence on a first time offender who is guilty of a third degree felony provides no indication that the sentence is based upon permissible considerations. ... Because taken together they do not provide an effective basis for appellate review, we are forced to remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(F)(1)-(3) requires an appellate court reviewing a sentencing decision to examine the presentence investigation report and psychological reports; it does not require an additional review of those materials.

State v. Willis, Unpublished Decision (11-12-2002) · filed 2002-11-12(F)(1)-(3)

This court is already required to review the presentence investigation report and psychological reports when considering whether the trial court erred in its sentencing determination. Id; R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1)-(3). No further review is required by law.

Section 2953.08(F) requires the appellate court to examine the presentence investigation report when reviewing a sentencing determination.

State v. Hicks, Unpublished Decision (2-3-2003) · filed 2003-02-03(F)

Consequently, the presentence investigation report is already included in the record this court is required to examine when reviewing a trial court's sentencing determination. See R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1)-(3).

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to examine the presentence investigation report in the record; it need not review the report again after doing so.

State v. Lane, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2003) · filed 2003-03-17(F)

Consequently, the presentence investigation report is already included in the record this court is required to examine when reviewing a trial court's sentencing determination. See R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1)-(3).

Section 2953.08(F) makes a presentence investigation report part of the appellate record for review of a felony sentence, even though the report is not public.

State v. Lunsford, Unpublished Decision (3-24-2003) · filed 2003-03-24(F)

Although the PSI is not part of the public record, it is part of the appellate record for our review. R.C. 2953.08 (F).

Section 2953.08(F) directs a court reviewing a felony sentence to consider the entire record, including the judgment entry, sentencing transcript, sentencing worksheet, and presentence investigation report.

State v. Clark, Unpublished Decision (8-5-2003) · filed 2003-08-05(F)

Finally, R.C. 2953.08 (F) directs this court, as we review the sentence in this case, to consider the entire record, State v. Jones, Franklin App. No. 01AP-1183, 2002-Ohio-3725, at ¶ 19, including the trial court's judgment entry, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the court's sentencing worksheet and the PSI report.

Section 2953.08(F)(1)-(3) allows an appellate court reviewing a sentence to examine the presentence investigative report, the trial court record, and statements made at sentencing.

State v. Tolliver, Unpublished Decision (9-24-2003) · filed 2003-09-24(F)(1)-(3)

The applicable record that an appellate court can examine when reviewing a sentence includes: (1) the presentence investigative report; (2) the trial court record in the case in which the sentence was imposed; and (3) any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing. R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1)-(3).

Section 2953.08(F) makes the presentence investigation report part of the appellate record for review, even though it is not part of the public record.

State v. Back, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2003) · filed 2003-11-10(F)

Although the PSI is not part of the public record, it is part of the appellate record for our review. R.C. 2953.08 (F).

Section 2953.08 requires an appellant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Porter, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2004) · filed 2004-03-01

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 , appellant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(F) requires the appellate record for sentencing review to include the presentence investigation report, the trial court record, and statements made to or by the court at sentencing.

State v. Nerghes, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2004) · filed 2004-03-17(F)

{¶ 40} The applicable record to be reviewed by the appellate court shall include the following; (1) the presentence investigative report; (2) the trial court record in the case in which the sentence was imposed; and (3) any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed. R.C. 2953.08 (F).

Section 2953.08(F) requires the appellate court to examine the presentence investigation report when reviewing a sentencing decision, including an order of restitution.

State v. Brumett, Unpublished Decision (5-3-2004) · filed 2004-05-03(F)(1)-(3)

Consequently, the PSI is included in the record this court is required to examine when reviewing a trial court's sentencing decision, including an order of restitution. See R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1)-(3); State v. Back, Butler App. No. CA2003-01-011, 2003-Ohio-5985 .

Section 2953.08(F)(1) through (3) identifies the materials an appellate court examines when reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Kingrey, Unpublished Decision (8-30-2004) · filed 2004-08-30(F)(1) through (3)

When reviewing a sentence imposed by the trial court, the applicable record to be examined by the appellate court includes the following: (1) the pre-sentence investigation report; (2) the trial court record in the case in which the sentence was imposed; and (3) any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed. R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1) through (3).

Section 2953.08(F)(1) through (3) identifies the pre-sentence investigation report, trial court record, and sentencing-hearing statements as part of the record reviewed on appeal from a felony sentence.

State v. Hiles, Unpublished Decision (7-30-2004) · filed 2004-07-30(F)(1)-(3)

When reviewing a sentence imposed by the trial court, the applicable record to be examined by the appellate court includes the following: (1) the pre-sentence investigation report; (2) the trial court record in the case in which the sentence was imposed; and (3) any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed. R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1) through (3).

Section 2953.08(F)(1)-(3) identifies the materials an appellate court examines when reviewing a felony sentence, including the presentence investigation report, trial court record, and statements made at sentencing.

State v. Hickman, Unpublished Decision (12-13-2004) · filed 2004-12-13(F)(1)-(3)

When reviewing a sentence imposed by the trial court, the applicable record to be examined by the appellate court includes the following: (1) the presentence investigation report; (2) the trial court record in the case in which the sentence was imposed; and (3) any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed. R.C. 2953.08 (F) (1) through (3).

Section 2953.08(F) makes a presentence investigation report part of the appellate record for sentencing review even when it is not public.

State v. Dandridge, Unpublished Decision (3-14-2005) · filed 2005-03-14(F)

Although the PSI is not part of the public record, it is part of the appellate record for our review. R.C. 2953.08 (F).

Section 2953.08(F)(1) through (3) includes the presentence investigation report, trial court record, and sentencing hearing statements in the record for appellate review of a felony sentence.

State v. Flak, Unpublished Decision (3-25-2005) · filed 2005-03-25(F)(1) through (3)

When reviewing a sentence imposed by the trial court, the applicable record to be examined by the appellate court includes the following: (1) the presentence investigation report; (2) the trial court record in the case in which the sentence was imposed; and (3) any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed. R.C. 2953.08 (F) (1) through (3). ... We reach the same conclusion, in the case sub judice, because appellant failed to include in the record the pre-sentence investigation reports and the victim impact statements.

Section 2953.08(F)(1)-(3) includes the presentence investigation report, trial court record, and sentencing hearing statements in the record reviewed on appeal.

State v. Collins, Unpublished Decision (4-5-2005) · filed 2005-04-05(F)(1)-(3)

When reviewing a sentence imposed by the trial court, the applicable record to be examined by the appellate court includes the following: (1) the presentence investigation report; (2) the trial court record in the case in which the sentence was imposed; and (3) any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed.

Section 2953.08 requires an appellant seeking to modify or vacate a maximum felony sentence to demonstrate sentencing error by clear and convincing evidence.

State v. Bell, Unpublished Decision (5-16-2005) · filed 2005-05-16

In order to modify or vacate a maximum sentence on appeal, an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence.

Section 2953.08(F) requires the appellate record in a felony sentencing challenge to include any written presentence report submitted before sentencing; failure to include it can prevent review of challenged sentencing findings.

State v. Ward, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2005) · filed 2005-05-23(F)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (F), the record on appeal in a felony sentencing challenge shall include, inter alia, "[a]ny presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed." ... Under the circumstances of the case sub judice, we find no basis to reverse or remand appellant's sentences in this regard, since there is a failure to make the presentence investigation report part of the record.

Section 2953.08(F)(1) through (3) identifies the records and sentencing statements an appellate court examines when reviewing a sentence.

State v. Black, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2005) · filed 2005-11-10(F)(1) through (3)

When reviewing a sentence imposed by the trial court, the applicable record to be examined by the appellate court includes the following: (1) the pre-sentence investigation report; (2) the trial court record in the case in which the sentence was imposed; and (3) any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed. R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1) through (3).

Section 2953.08(F) excludes an exhibit first submitted on appeal from the record reviewed in a sentencing appeal.

State v. Summers, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2006) · filed 2006-06-23(F)

Because Summers' exhibit is not in the trial record in this case and is not within the scope of R.C. 2953.08 (F), it is not a part of the record to be reviewed on her sentencing appeal. Therefore, we conclude that Summers' exhibit is not properly before this court for review.

Section 2953.08(F)(1) includes the presentence investigation report in the record for appellate sentencing review, with the report submitted under seal.

State v. Dobbelaere, 4-08-19 (11-24-2008) · filed 2008-11-24(F)(1)

For these reasons, the clerk, or in some counties the court itself, submits the PSI under seal to the appellate court for review under R.C. 2953.08 (F)(1).

Section 2953.08(F) makes the presentence investigation report part of the appellate record for review, although it is not public.

State v. Weyand, 07-Co-40 (12-4-2008) · filed 2008-12-04(F)

Although the PSI is not part of the public record, it is part of the appellate record for review. R.C. 2953.08 (F).

Section 2953.08(F)(1) requires a presentence investigation report submitted before sentencing to be included in the record on appeal.

State v. Blanton · filed 2012-12-05(F)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(F)(1) requires a presentence investigation report to be included in the record on appeal if submitted to the court before sentencing. Because there is no record that the court considered a presentence investigation before sentencing Blanton to community control for his felony conviction, this portion of his sentence is also clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(F)(1) makes the presentence investigation report part of the sentencing record on appeal.

State v. Smith · filed 2013-03-01(F)(1)

The PSI is part of the sentencing record on appeal. R.C. 2953.08(F)(1). There is no reason why the court could not use the PSI to find that appellant is the same person referenced in the certified copy of the 1986 conviction.

Section 2953.08 requires a court reviewing a felony sentence to consider the full record, including statements made at the sentencing hearing.

State v. Washington · filed 2013-11-14(F)(3), (G)(2)

On appeal from a felony sentence, the reviewing court “shall review the record,” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which includes more than the evidence and arguments presented at trial. R.C. 2953.08(F)(3) provides that the record to be reviewed shall include “[a]ny oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate review to the felony sentences the defendant appealed.

State v. Cowins · filed 2013-02-01(G)(2)

Since Cowins has appealed only from the sentences imposed for the offenses charged in Counts 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, we limit our review to errors affecting those sentences. See App.R. 12(A); see also R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, paragraph three of the syllabus (“An appellate court may * * * vacate only a sentence for an offense that is appealed by the defendant and may not modify, remand, or vacate the entire multiple-offense sentence.”).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to review the sentencing record, including the findings underlying the sentence.

State v. Alexander · filed 2013-05-16(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.”

Section 2953.08(F)(1) permits an appellate court to review presentence investigation reports prepared pursuant to R.C. 2947.06.

State v. Reed · filed 2013-09-16(F)(1)

This Court is permitted to review presentence investigation reports prepared pursuant to R.C. 2947.06. R.C. 2953.08(F)(1).

Section 2953.08(F)(1) makes the presentence investigation report part of the record on a sentencing appeal while preserving its confidentiality.

State v. Johnson · filed 2014-03-05(F)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(F)(1) provides that a presentence investigation report is part of the record to be reviewed on an appeal of a sentence under that statute; it also provides that during such an appeal, an appellate court must comply with R.C. 2951.03(D)(3) when not using the report and that the appellate court’s use of the report does not affect the otherwise confidential nature of its contents or make it a public record.

Section 2953.08(F)(2)-(3) directs appellate courts reviewing a felony sentence to consider the trial record and statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing.

State v. Van Tielen · filed 2014-10-06(F)(2)-(3)

The dissent also suggests that this court is limited to review only the sentencing court's verbatim pronouncement of sentence, and that it is improper to consider other aspects of sentencing when determining if use of a nunc pro tunc entry was proper. However, the Ohio Legislature expressly instructed appellate courts to review "the trial record in the case in which the sentence was imposed" and "any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed" when reviewing a sentence. (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.08(F)(2)-(3).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to consider the entire trial court record, not just the sentencing hearing, when reviewing sentencing findings.

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

The term "record" as used in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is very broad. It encompasses all of the proceedings before the court, not just the sentencing.

Section 2953.08(F)(1) makes the presentence investigation report part of the record when a sentence is appealed.

State v. Balderson · filed 2018-09-13(F)(1)

The contents of a PSI are confidential and are not a public record, R.C. 2951.03(D)(1), but the report is part of the record on appeal when the sentence is appealed. R.C. 2953.08(F)(1). ... The prosecutor filed a motion to supplement the appellate record with the PSI. In accordance with R.C. 2953.08(F)(1), we granted that request.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court reviewing consecutive-sentence findings to consider the entire record, including proceedings before sentencing.

State v. Peak · filed 2019-06-27(G)(2)

When examining whether the “record” supports the trial court’s finding, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is broadly worded to “encompass all of the proceedings before the court, not just the sentencing” and support for consecutive findings “may appear anywhere in the ‘record’ and not just at the time the court imposes consecutive sentences.”

Section 2953.08(F) makes a presentence investigation report part of the appellate record in a felony-sentence appeal; when the report is missing and needed for review, the appellate court will obtain it from the clerk.

State v. Day · filed 2019-11-14(F)

Although the PSI report is not part of the public record, it is part of the appellate record for our review. R.C. 2953.08(F) (governing appeals based on felony sentencing guidelines, including an appeal contending that the felony sentence is “contrary to law”); State v. Martin, 140 Ohio App.3d 326, 327, 2000-Ohio-1942, 747 N.E.2d 318 (4th Dist.). ... PSI reports are part of the appellate record and when they are missing from the record and necessary for our review, we will sua sponte acquire them from the clerk.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court reviewing consecutive-sentence findings to consider the entire record, including proceedings before sentencing.

State v. Meadows · filed 2022-12-15(G)(2)

When examining whether the record supports the trial court’s findings, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is broadly worded to encompass all of the proceedings before the court, not just the sentencing, and support for consecutive findings may appear anywhere in the record and not just at the time the court imposes consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court reviewing a criminal sentence to review the entire trial court record, including statements and presentence investigation reports.

State v. McClellan · filed 2022-12-30(F)

The summary PSI considered by the sentencing judge has not been included in the record before us, but we are required by R.C. 2953.08(F) in our review of criminal sentences “‘to review the entire trial-court record, including any oral or written statements and [PSI] reports.’”

Section 2953.08(F) requires review of the entire trial court record, including any presentence investigation report; when that report is missing, the appellate court cannot properly review the sentence.

State v. Jaycox · filed 2023-06-20(F)

“A court reviewing a criminal sentence is required by R.C. 2953.08(F) to review the entire trial-court record, including any oral or written statements and presentence investigation reports.” State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 20. ... Because the record before us does not contain the PSI necessary for appellate review, we cannot properly review Mr. Jaycox’s sentence.

Section 2953.08(F) requires review of the entire trial-court record, including the presentence investigation report; an appellant’s failure to provide that report can compel affirmance.

State v. Zappa · filed 2023-09-11(F)

“A court reviewing a criminal sentence is required by R.C. 2953.08(F) to review the entire trial-court record, including any oral or written statements and presentence investigation reports.” ... This Court has consistently held where the appellant has failed to provide a complete record to facilitate appellate review, including the presentence investigation report, we are compelled to affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Section 2953.08(F) requires a court reviewing a criminal sentence to review the entire trial court record, including oral and written statements and presentence investigation reports.

State v. Spears · filed 2024-06-21(F)

A court reviewing a criminal sentence is required by R.C. 2953.08(F) to review the entire trial court record, including any oral or written statements and presentence investigation reports.

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to examine the entire trial court record, including sentencing statements and written investigative reports submitted before sentencing.

State v. Haynes · filed 2024-08-22(F)

R.C. 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court to review the entire trial court record, including any oral or written statements made to or by the trial court at the sentencing hearing, and any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed.

Section 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to consider the entire record, including sentencing statements and reports submitted before sentencing.

State v. Bailey · filed 2024-09-19(F)

Consequently, R.C. 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court to review the entire record, including oral or written statements made to or by the trial court at the sentencing hearing, and any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report submitted to the court before the court imposes sentence.

Section 2953.08(F) requires a court reviewing a felony sentence to consider the entire trial court record, including remarks made at the sentencing hearing.

State v. Marshall · filed 2024-11-07(F)

The reviewing court must consider the entire trial court record, which includes oral or written remarks made to or by the trial court at the sentencing hearing. R.C. 2953.08(F).

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

State v. Shull · filed 2025-04-10(F)

When reviewing a criminal sentence, R.C. 2953.08(F) requires a court to examine the entire record, including any oral or written statements and presentence-investigation reports.

Section 2953.08(F) includes presentence reports, the trial record, and statements submitted at sentencing in the record used for appellate review.

State v. Cobb · filed 2025-04-11(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)(3) includes oral statements made to the sentencing court in the record on appeal, even when they were not presented as testimony or exhibits.

State v. John · filed 2025-07-07(F)(3)

While these assertions were not presented in the form of testimony or exhibits, the record on appeal includes “[a]ny oral . . . statements made to . . . the court at the sentencing hearing . . . .” R.C. 2953.08(F)(3).

Section 2953.08(F)(1) requires the record reviewed on appeal to include any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report submitted to the sentencing court in writing before sentencing.

State v. Carter · filed 2025-07-18(F)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(F)(1), however, provides that the record to be reviewed on appeal shall include “[a]ny presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed.”

Section 2953.08(F) requires a court reviewing a criminal sentence to examine the entire record, including statements and presentence-investigation reports.

State v. Michalski · filed 2026-06-24(F)

When reviewing a criminal sentence, R.C. 2953.08(F) requires a court to examine the entire record, including any oral or written statements and presentence-investigation reports.

Section 2953.08(F) includes reports submitted to the trial court, the trial record, and sentencing-hearing statements in the record reviewed on appeal.

State v. Norris · filed 2023-11-09(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(D)(1) permits a defendant to challenge an agreed sentence that fails to comply with mandatory post-release-control requirements.

State v. Hill · filed 2017-05-25(D)(1)

This reasoning is persuasive. Consequently, even though the sentence was agreed upon, Appellant cannot waive his right to challenge the failure to follow statutory mandates in imposing post-release control.

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

State v. Atwater · filed 2017-06-01(D)

R.C. 2953.08(D) governs Atwater’s claim. It provides that a sentence is not subject to review where it is: (1) authorized by law, (2) jointly recommended by the prosecution and defendant; and (3) imposed by a sentencing judge.

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

State v. Long · filed 2017-06-21(D)

As Long’s sentence was authorized under law, recommended jointly by the State and Long, and was duly imposed by the trial court, Long is now prohibited from contesting the legality of his sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a lawful sentence imposed within a jointly agreed sentencing cap.

State v. Arnold · filed 2017-04-14(D)(1)

An agreement to “cap” a sentence is analogous to an agreement to impose a sentence within an agreed range, for purposes of R.C. 2953.08.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars a sentencing appeal challenging the failure to merge counts when the defendant expressly agreed they would not merge.

State v. Smith · filed 2017-05-01(D)(1)

Accordingly, because Smith expressly agreed that Count III would not merge with Count I and Count II for sentencing, his attorney could not raise the trial court’s failure to merge the counts on appeal. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(A)(2) does not permit review of individual sentences when the trial court specifies that the offenses were committed while the defendant was on postrelease control.

State v. Edner · filed 2017-04-13(A)(2)

Further, Esner has not provided us a basis to conclude that the record does not support the findings, and we cannot review the individual sentences under R.C. 2953.08(A)(2) because the trial court specified that Esner committed the offenses while on postrelease control under R.C. ... 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(xi).

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

State v. Brown · filed 2017-01-19(D)(1)

Thus, given that all three criteria exist in this case as set forth in R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Brown’s challenge of his sentence is beyond the scope of appellate review.

An agreed sentence imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea is not subject to appellate review under section 2953.08(D).

State v. Pulliam · filed 2017-01-13(D)

As such, we find that this argument is barred by both the doctrine of res judicata, as well as the fact that his sentence is not subject to appellate review as it was imposed pursuant to an agreed plea and sentence.

An agreed sentence cannot be appealed when both parties agreed to it, the trial court imposed it, and it is authorized by law; an allied-offense challenge may still be raised.

State v. Davis · filed 2017-01-23(D)(1)

We note that an agreed-upon sentence may not be appealed if both the defendant and the state agree to the sentence, the trial court imposes the agreed sentence, and the sentence is authorized by law. State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 16; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). However, the Ohio Supreme Court in Underwood held that an appellant can argue that an agreed sentence is invalid if the challenge raises an allied offense argument.

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

State v. Griffith · filed 2016-12-30(D)(1)

Because Griffith’s lawful sentence was jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the sentencing judge, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), we are precluded from reviewing his sentence on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal when the defendant and state agree to a sentence, the trial court imposes it, and it is authorized by law.

State v. Belton · filed 2016-12-23(D)(1)

Moreover, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a defendant may not appeal his sentence when, “(1) both the defendant and the state agree to the sentence, (2) the trial court imposes the agreed sentence, and (3) the sentence is authorized by law.” State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 16; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). ... Based on this record, it is apparent that Appellant’s sentence was based on an agreement between Appellant and the state, the trial court imposed that agreed sentence, and the mandatory consecutive sentences for the firearm specifications were authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal when the defendant and state agreed to a sentence, the trial court imposed it, and the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Greathouse · filed 2016-11-17(D)(1)

A defendant may not appeal his or her sentence when “(1) both the defendant and the state agree to the sentence, (2) the trial court imposes the agreed sentence, and (3) the sentence is authorized by law.”

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a lawful felony sentence jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Mack · filed 2016-09-23(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08 governs appeals based on felony sentencing guidelines, and R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides as follows: “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” ... We agree that this “potential” assignment of error lacks merit, and it is overruled.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an agreed sentence that is authorized by law.

State v. Hale · filed 2016-09-30(D)(1)

The sentence imposed is an agreed sentence that is authorized by law and the sentence is not subject to review on appeal.

An agreed sentence may be reviewed when a claimed excess over the statutory range would make it unauthorized by law.

State v. Scott · filed 2016-09-22(D)(1)

Scott contends that his sentences do not fall within the statutory range, and therefore the sentences are not authorized by law. With this contention, we find that his agreed-upon sentence can be reviewed by this court.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal from a sentence agreed to by the defendant and the state, imposed by the trial court, and authorized by law.

State v. Sailes · filed 2016-07-28(D)(1)

Therefore, Sailes’s agreed-upon sentence may not be appealed.

Section 2953.08 bars appellate review of an authorized sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Guerra · filed 2016-09-02

Accordingly, an agreed-upon sentence that is authorized by law is simply not subject to review on appeal.

A sentence within a range agreed to by the prosecution and defendant is jointly recommended under § 2953.08(D)(1) and, when the provision’s other requirements are met, cannot be challenged on appeal.

State v. Connors · filed 2016-05-27(D)(1)

This court also repeatedly has held that a sentence within an agreed-upon range is a jointly-recommended sentence under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). ... Because he did accept a plea deal that explicitly authorized his sentence, he cannot challenge the sentence on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits review despite an agreed plea and jointly recommended sentence when a claimed defect in the juvenile bindover could mean the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, making the sentence unauthorized by law.

State v. Marshall · filed 2016-05-27(D)(1)

We see no reason to depart from the reasoning of Amos in the context of an agreed plea and jointly-recommended sentence imposed by the trial court, because, if the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a criminal case, then its sentence was not “authorized by law” within the context of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Henderson · filed 2016-06-17(D)(1)

Because Henderson’s sentence was authorized by law and jointly recommended by the parties, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes us from reviewing the length of his sentences.

Section 2953.08(D) generally prevents an appeal challenging a sentence imposed as part of a negotiated plea.

State v. Powell · filed 2014-10-23(D)

Moreover, a sentence imposed as part of a negotiated plea is not generally subject to appeal. See R.C. 2953.08(D); State v. Stump, 4th Dist. Athens No. 13CA10, 2014-Ohio-1487, at ¶6.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a lawful sentence jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Weese · filed 2014-07-25(D)

Therefore, not only were findings unnecessary, but the agreed sentence is not subject to appellate review.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits a felony sentence to be found contrary to law, but a sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law when the trial court considered the sentencing purposes and factors and imposed a sentence within the statutory range.

State v. Gonzalez · filed 2014-07-25(G)(2)(b)

A trial court’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the court considered the R.C. 2929.11 purposes and principles of sentencing, considered the R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors, and imposed a sentence within the statutory range.

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

State v. Street, Unpublished Decision (9-30-1998) · filed 1998-09-30(D)

Thus, because the sentences were authorized by law and Appellant and the State jointly recommended the sentences received by Appellant, R.C. 2953.08 (D) provides that the sentences are not subject to review.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a lawful sentence imposed in accordance with a plea agreement that effectively recommends the sentence jointly.

State v. Powell, Unpublished Decision (1-22-1999) · filed 1999-01-22(D)

To that extent, we believe that when the court sentenced the defendant precisely in accord with the terms of the plea agreement, it imposed a sentence that effectively had been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution. Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), the sentence imposed by the trial court is not subject to review on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended felony sentence imposed by the sentencing judge when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Stacy, Unpublished Decision (5-10-1999) · filed 1999-05-10(D)

An appellate court may not review such a jointly recommended felony sentence unless it finds that the sentence is not authorized by law. ... Appellant's negotiated felony sentence is not subject to appellate review.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the judge, including a challenge based on allied offenses.

State v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (9-27-1999) · filed 1999-09-27(D)

Therefore, we find that appellant's claim that his sentence violates R.C. 2941.25 is not subject to appellate review since he knowingly and voluntarily entered a negotiated plea agreement pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

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

State v. Byerly, Unpublished Decision (11-4-1999) · filed 1999-11-04(D)

Thus, because the sentences were authorized by law and the appellant and the State jointly recommended the sentences received by the appellant, R.C. 2953.08 (D) provides that the sentences are not subject to review.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a sentence authorized by law, jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution, and imposed by the judge, including a challenge based on allied offenses.

State v. Stansell, Unpublished Decision (4-20-2000) · filed 2000-04-20(D)

Agreed sentences are also protected by statute from appellate challenges under R.C. 2953.08 (D) which provides: A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge. ... The trial court's imposition of the sentence agreed to by Stansell and the prosecution as part of a proper plea bargain may not be challenged on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D) bars an appeal of a negotiated sentence when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Presta, Unpublished Decision (9-18-2000) · filed 2000-09-18(D)

Under the plain language of the statute, a defendant sentenced pursuant to a negotiated agreement under R.C. 2953.08 (D) may not appeal his sentence if it is "authorized by law."

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Rogg, Unpublished Decision (3-13-2001) · filed 2001-03-13(D)

R.C. 2953.08 (D) prohibits a criminal defendant from appealing the defendant's sentence if the state and the defendant jointly recommended the sentence as part of a plea negotiation and if the sentence is authorized by law.

An agreed sentence is subject to appellate review under § 2953.08(D) when it does not comply with required sentencing findings.

State v. Hyde, Unpublished Decision (1-11-2001) · filed 2001-01-11(D)

As we concluded earlier, the sentence, while recommended by both parties, is not authorized by law because it does not conform to the mandates of Edmunson. While this error is subject to our review, it does not, however, constitute reversible error.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a sentence that is authorized by law and jointly agreed to by the defendant and prosecution.

State v. Stepp, Unpublished Decision (1-24-2001) · filed 2001-01-24(D)

R.C. 2953.08 (D) states that if a sentence is authorized by law and jointly agreed to by the defendant and the prosecution, it is "not subject to review." Stepp's agreed sentence was within the statutory range for the offenses of which he was convicted, and it is therefore not subject to review.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the sentencing judge when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Bechstein, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2001) · filed 2001-03-23(D)

Since each sentence fits within the statutory provisions and is therefore authorized by law, and since they were jointly recommended by Appellant and the State, these sentences are not subject to review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a sentence that is authorized by law, jointly recommended by the defense and prosecution, and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Sneed, Unpublished Decision (7-25-2001) · filed 2001-07-25(D)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), an imposed sentence is not subject to review where it is authorized by law, has been jointly recommended by the defense and prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge. Here, sentences for aggravated robbery and involuntary manslaughter were authorized by law because they did not exceed the statutory range. Additionally, the court imposed the exact sentence agreed upon by Sneed and the state. Given that, we hold that findings were not necessary here.

Section 2953.08(D) prohibits an appeal of a sentence jointly recommended by the state and defendant when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Benner, Unpublished Decision (8-1-2001) · filed 2001-08-01(D)

It appears that there was a joint recommendation of sentence and R.C. 2953.08 (D) does apply. Thus, R.C. 2953.08 (D) prohibits appellant from appealing his sentence to this Court.

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

State v. Gaddis, Unpublished Decision (8-02-2001) · filed 2001-08-02(D)

R.C. 2953.08 (D) states: A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge. ... Because all three factors exist in this case, Gaddis' sentence is not subject to our review.

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

State v. Salsgiver, Unpublished Decision (8-10-2001) · filed 2001-08-10(D)

Because appellant's sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, it is not reviewable according to R.C. 2953.08 (D), which provides, in part: "[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge."

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

State v. Manns, Unpublished Decision (11-30-2001) · filed 2001-11-30(D)

R.C. 2953.08 (D) provides that a "sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review * * * if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge." It is undisputed that Manns' sentence satisfied each of these three requirements.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review when a plea results from negotiation and is jointly recommended by defense counsel and the state.

State v. Sumes, Unpublished Decision (4-1-2002) · filed 2002-04-01(D)

Additionally, appellant's appeal is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08 (D) as his plea was the result of a negotiated plea and was recommended jointly by defense counsel and the state.

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

State v. Sykes, Unpublished Decision (4-18-2002) · filed 2002-04-18(D)

As defendant's sentence was jointly recommended, was "authorized by law" and imposed by the trial court, the sentence is not subject to review by this court.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review when a sentencing judge imposes a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law.

State v. Rhodes, Unpublished Decision (6-6-2002) · filed 2002-06-06(D)

It is clear the statute precludes appellate review of a sentence when three elements are met: 1) the sentence was authorized by law; 2) the sentence was made by a sentencing judge; and, 3) the sentence was jointly recommended by the prosecution and defendant to that sentencing judge.

Section 2953.08(D) bars a defendant from appealing a sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and the state when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (6-26-2002) · filed 2002-06-26(D)

A defendant is prohibited from appealing his sentence if the state and the defendant jointly recommended the sentence, and if the sentence was authorized by law. See R.C. 2953.08 (D). Our review of the sentencing hearing transcript reveals appellant and the state jointly recommended to the trial court the sentence imposed upon appellant. Also, the sentence imposed by the trial court was authorized by law. See R.C. 4511.99 (A)(8)(i). Accordingly, R.C. 2953.08 (D) applies and prevents appellant from appealing his sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) precludes appellate review of an agreed sentence.

State v. Lattimore, Unpublished Decision (5-15-2002) · filed 2002-05-15(D)

To the extent that Lattimore challenges his term of incarceration, R.C. 2953.08 (D) precludes review of his agreed sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a lawful sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution as part of a plea bargain and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Schoolcraft, Unpublished Decision (7-10-2002) · filed 2002-07-10(D)

A sentence is not subject to appellate review if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution as part of a plea bargain, and is imposed by the sentencing judge. R.C. 2953.08 (D); also see State v. Thomas , Montgomery App. No. 18943, 2002-Ohio-1895; State v. Stansell (Apr. 20, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 75889. ... Therefore, appellant's sentences are not subject to our review.

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

State v. Carter, Unpublished Decision (12-17-2002) · filed 2002-12-17(D)

As appellant's sentences were jointly recommended, authorized by law and imposed by the trial court, they are not subject to review by this court.

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

State v. Wolfe, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2003) · filed 2003-02-06(D)

R.C. 2953.08 (D) provides that a sentenced imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section, if the sentence is authorized by law, as has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge. Here, the record is clear that appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered into an agreement with the State with respect to the sentences he would receive. The State complied with the agreement and appellant now seeks to sidestep the agreement.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the sentencing judge when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Krupa, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2003) · filed 2003-06-30(D)

That said, this appeal must fail because the sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement where the five year sentence was a joint recommendation of Appellant and the State. R.C. 2953.08 governs the right and scope of appeals directed at sentencing. Section (D) of that provision explicitly prohibits this Court from entertaining this appeal. Specifically, the law states in pertinent part that, "a sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge."

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

State v. Huggins, Unpublished Decision (7-18-2003) · filed 2003-07-18(D)

Thus, R.C. 2953.08 (D) precludes appellate review of a sentence when three elements are met: 1) the sentence was authorized by law; 2) the sentence was made by a sentencing judge; and, 3) the sentence was jointly recommended by the prosecution and defendant to that sentencing judge.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence imposed by a judge after a community control violation when the parties jointly recommended a longer sentence for that violation.

State v. Amato, Unpublished Decision (8-6-2003) · filed 2003-08-06(D)

Since Appellant and the prosecution jointly recommended a sentence of ten years for any community control violation, the sentence was authorized by law, and the sentence was indisputably imposed by a sentencing judge, Appellant's appeal of his two-year prison sentence is barred by R.C. 2953.08 (D).

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

State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (8-27-2003) · filed 2003-08-27(D)

Because Williams's sentence was authorized by law, jointly recommended by him and the prosecution, and indisputably imposed by a sentencing judge, his appeal of his cumulative eighteen-year prison sentence is barred by R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a lawful sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Conethan, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2003) · filed 2003-12-22(D)

This court has previously determined, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), that an appeal may not be taken from a sentence that is recommended by both parties and is authorized by law. ... Accordingly, appellant may not appeal his sentences.

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

State v. Pishok, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2003) · filed 2003-12-29(D)

Sentences imposed pursuant to plea agreements are protected from appellate challenges pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), which provides that when a sentence is authorized by law and jointly recommended by the defendant and the state, the sentence is not subject to review if it is imposed by the sentencing judge.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the trial judge.

State v. Coleman, Unpublished Decision (12-31-2003) · filed 2003-12-31(D)

A sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and the prosecution in a criminal case, and imposed by the trial judge, is not reviewable on appeal. R.C. 2953.08 (D). Thus, appellant could not have assigned as error in his direct appeal the trial court's imposition of maximum and consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08 precludes appellate review of a sentence that is jointly recommended, lawful, and imposed by the sentencing judge; its preclusion does not apply to sentences governed by pre-Senate Bill 2 law.

State v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2004) · filed 2004-02-06

This section precludes appellate review of sentences that are (1) jointly recommended, (2) not contrary to law, and (3) imposed by a sentencing judge. ... The pre-Senate Bill 2 version does not contain the preclusion language regarding jointly-recommended sentences.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of an agreed sentence only when the parties agree to a specific term, rather than a range of possible terms.

State v. Gray, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003) · filed 2003-10-31(D)

We now hold that a sentence is not an agreed sentence unless the parties agree to a specific term, as opposed to a range of possible terms.

Section 2953.08(D) can bar review of a plea-related appeal involving a negotiated sentence when the defendant did not seek to withdraw the plea.

State v. Lowry, Unpublished Decision (12-8-2003) · filed 2003-12-08(D)

Moreover, in State v. Sumes, Stark App. No. 2001CA00196, 2002-Ohio-1582, we relied on R.C. 2953.08 (D) in finding unreviewable a defendant's appeal which, in part, asserted that the trial court had erred on a plea-related issue, i.e., in accepting a guilty plea without first determining whether said defendant understood the nature of the charges to which he had pled. ... In the case sub judice, appellant entered into a negotiated plea and thereafter failed to attempt to withdraw the plea. As such, we find the rationale of Sumes applicable herein.

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

State v. Conner, Unpublished Decision (3-5-2004) · filed 2004-03-05(D)

In such a case, there is no appeal: "A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge." R.C. 2953.08 (D).

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

State v. Boylen, Unpublished Decision (3-15-2004) · filed 2004-03-15(D)

Subsection (D) states, "A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge." ... Upon review, we find the trial court sentenced appellant per the negotiated plea. The trial court did not err in sentencing appellant per the plea agreement.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a sentence only when it is authorized by law, jointly recommended by the parties, and imposed by a sentencing judge.

State v. Price, Unpublished Decision (3-16-2004) · filed 2004-03-16(D)

Under the plain language of R.C. 2953.08 (D), a jointly recommended sentence, "authorized by law," and imposed by a sentencing judge, is not subject to appellate review. In this case, the sentence was imposed by a sentencing judge and was authorized by law, but was not a jointly recommended sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a sentence imposed by the sentencing judge when the defendant and prosecution jointly recommended it and it is authorized by law.

State v. Doak, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2004) · filed 2004-03-22(D)

Since the sentence the trial court imposed on Doak was jointly recommended and was authorized by law, we do not have the authority to review it.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a lawful sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Tillman, Unpublished Decision (4-16-2004) · filed 2004-04-16(D)

The plain language of R.C. 2953.08 (D) provides that a "sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge."

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a lawful sentence jointly recommended as part of a plea bargain and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Yeager, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2004) · filed 2004-06-29(D)

In conclusion, we find that Appellant's sentence was the result of a plea bargain and is not appealable pursuant to R.C. § 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the judge when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Dorsey, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2004) · filed 2004-08-31(D)

Neither the defendant nor the prosecution may appeal from a sentence that is recommended by both parties and is authorized by law. ... Since each sentence falls well within the statutory range, the aggregate sentence was "authorized by law" under R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) requires both the defendant and the prosecution to recommend a sentence for it to qualify as an agreed sentence.

State v. Monford, Unpublished Decision (10-22-2004) · filed 2004-10-22(D)

An agreed sentence, defined in R.C. 2953.08 (D), is a sentence that "has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution." The transcript of the sentencing hearing is silent concerning any agreement, and the urging by Monford's counsel that the trial court refrain from imposing a maximum sentence in lieu of a three-and-one-half-year prison term shows that the prosecutor and Monford's counsel had not agreed on a sentence.

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

State v. McBride, Unpublished Decision (11-23-2004) · filed 2004-11-23(D)

Because all three of the elements set forth in R.C. 2953.08 (D) have been met, the sentence imposed on appellant herein is not subject to review.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the sentencing judge when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Thomas, Unpublished Decision (12-17-2004) · filed 2004-12-17(D)

In the case sub judice, because appellant's sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, it is not reviewable according to R.C. 2953.08 (D). ... The seven year sentence imposed by the sentencing judge is authorized by law.

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

State v. Cargle, Unpublished Decision (11-24-2004) · filed 2004-11-24(D)

Thus, because all three conditions in R.C. 2953.08 (D) are satisfied in this case, the sentence imposed by the trial court following remand from this court is not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the judge when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Sherman, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004) · filed 2004-12-09(D)

The Ohio Revised Code is clear, "[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge." R.C. 2953.08 (D). ... Thus, the sentence equaled the maximum; it did not exceed the maximum. It is equally clear from the record, as stated above, that appellant freely entered into the agreed sentence. Appellant's sentence is not subject to review.

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

State v. Guy, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004) · filed 2004-12-09(G)(2)(b)

Accordingly, the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law and must be vacated. See R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

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

State v. Hartsock, Unpublished Decision (12-17-2004) · filed 2004-12-17(G)(2)

In reviewing a sentence on appeal, the appellate court may increase, reduce or otherwise modify the sentence or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing where it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is contrary to law or that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.13 (B) or (D), R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) or R.C. 2929.20 (H).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows 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 contrary to law.

State v. Walizer, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2004) · filed 2004-12-22(G)(2)

When reviewing a sentence on appeal, an appellate court "may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence" or it may vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2). ... Having complied with the statutory sentencing requirements, this Court cannot find that the trial court acted contrary to law in imposing a prison term on Appellant for a fifth degree felony. Appellant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court erred.

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. Hennis, Unpublished Decision (1-7-2005) · filed 2005-01-07(G)(2)(b)

The standard of review for an appellate court that is reviewing a sentence imposed by a trial court is described in R.C. 2953.08 (G), which states: ... "The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... "(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." ... This matter will be remanded to the trial court for resentencing.