Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence, but does not bar review of whether the guilty plea was voluntary.

State v. Scott, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2005) · filed 2005-02-22(D)

While Scott's jointly recommended sentence is not subject to appellate review based on R.C. 2953.08 (D), the voluntariness of his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C) is reviewable.

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

State v. Rivers, Unpublished Decision (3-14-2005) · filed 2005-03-14(D)

In the case sub judice, because appellant's sentence was imposed pursuant to a joint plea agreement, it is not reviewable according to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) makes an authorized, jointly recommended sentence unreviewable on appeal, so the sentencing court need not state findings under Comer.

State v. Leeper, Unpublished Decision (4-26-2005) · filed 2005-04-26(D)

Thus, when the trial court imposes a jointly recommend sentence which is authorized by law, it is not required to state its findings as required by Comer because the sentence is not subject to appellate review.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence authorized by law and imposed by the sentencing judge, so the judge need not make findings supporting consecutive sentences.

State v. Turner, Unpublished Decision (5-31-2005) · filed 2005-05-31(D)

Thus, when the trial court imposes a jointly recommend sentence which is authorized by law, it is not required to state its findings as required by Comer because the sentence is not subject to appellate review.

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

State v. Dougherty, Unpublished Decision (6-1-2005) · filed 2005-06-01(D)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), "[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. * * *" Here, appellant and the prosecution agreed jointly to appellant's sentence. As such, his sentence was not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D) makes an agreed sentence imposed as recommended unreviewable on appeal.

State v. Berryman, Unpublished Decision (5-13-2005) · filed 2005-05-13(D)

A review of this record amply demonstrates that as part of the plea agreement Defendant and the State agreed to a twenty year sentence, and the trial court imposed that recommended sentence. Under those circumstances, Defendant's sentence is not reviewable on appeal. R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a lawful sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the sentencing judge; the judge therefore need not state sentencing findings.

State v. Horsley, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2005) · filed 2005-06-14(D)

Thus, when the trial court imposes a jointly recommend sentence which is authorized by law, it is not required to state its findings as required by Comer because the sentence is not subject to appellate review.

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

State v. Porterfield · filed 2005-07-06(D)

Porterfield’s sentence was authorized by law, was recommended jointly by him and the prosecution, and was imposed by a sentencing judge. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D), Porterfield’s sentence is not subject to review.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a prison sentence for a community control violation when the sentence is authorized by law, does not exceed the parties’ joint recommendation, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.

State v. Phillips, Unpublished Decision (9-6-2005) · filed 2005-09-06(D)

Accordingly, this court can entertain no appeal of the sentence herein for violation of community control because the defendant agreed to the sanctions as a part of a plea agreement, the sentence is authorized by law, and the sentence is 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. Parker, Unpublished Decision (9-12-2005) · filed 2005-09-12(D)

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 the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge." R.C. 2953.08 (D). ... In this case, appellant, the prosecutor, and the trial court all agreed on his sentence. Accordingly, appellant has waived his first assignment of error.

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 trial court.

State v. Wilbur, Unpublished Decision (11-22-2005) · filed 2005-11-22(D)

Finally, defendant claims that an appeal of the trial court's sentence in case No. 04CR-01-79 is available to him pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 . We disagree. A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review if the sentence is authorized by law, has been jointly recommended by the defendant and the prosecution, and was imposed by the trial 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. Costilla, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2005) · filed 2005-12-09(D)

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence authorized by law and it was jointly recommended by Costilla and the State. The first two assignments of error and the supplemental assignment are not subject to review and are overruled.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of an authorized sentence only when the defendant and prosecution jointly recommended it and the judge imposed it; a prosecutor’s recommendation alone does not bar the defendant’s appeal.

State v. Hooper, Unpublished Decision (12-27-2005) · filed 2005-12-27(D)

A criminal defendant may not appeal a jointly recommended sentence, pursuant to R.C. § 2953.08 (D): ... Although the prosecutor and Appellant negotiated a plea agreement, there is no indication that Appellant agreed to be sentenced to 15 years in prison. ... It does not state that Appellant agreed to that sentence, and Appellant's counsel actively sought a lesser sentence at the April 13, 2001, sentencing hearing. Therefore, it would appear that Appellant did not waive his right to appeal his sentence, even though he entered into a Crim.R. 11 plea agreement.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence.

State v. Mitchell, Unpublished Decision (2-10-2006) · filed 2006-02-10(D)

We note that Mitchell's sentence was jointly recommended. ... While Mitchell's sentence is not subject to appellate review based on R.C. 2953.08 (D), the voluntariness of his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C) is reviewable.

Section 2953.08(D) bars a defendant who agreed to a sentence from challenging it on appeal for lack of the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C).

State v. Abney, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2006) · filed 2006-01-26(D)

In following both R.C. 2953.08 (D) and Hyde, we conclude that appellant cannot now contest his sentence, to which he agreed at the plea hearing, as not complying with R.C. 2929.14 (C).

Section 2953.08(D) relieves a trial court of the requirement to state reasons for consecutive sentences when the defendant agrees to the sentence.

State v. Freeman, Unpublished Decision (2-3-2006) · filed 2006-02-03(D)

Since Freeman agreed to the sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), the trial court did not have to comply with the mandates set forth in R.C. 2929.19 (B)(2)(c) and State v. Comer.

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. McIntire, Unpublished Decision (4-28-2006) · filed 2006-04-28(D)

Moreover, when a sentence imposed "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 sentence is not subject to review.

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

State v. Wilkey, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2006) · filed 2006-06-19(D)

It is well-settled that an appellant cannot appeal from a sentence that is recommended by both parties (i.e., the prosecutor and the defendant) and is authorized by law. See R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of an agreed consecutive sentence when it is authorized by law.

State v. Woods, Unpublished Decision (5-5-2006) · filed 2006-05-05(D)

However, because the sentences were agreed by the parties, per R.C. 2953.08 (D) the consecutive requirement is beyond our appellate review if it was "authorized by law." Id. The consecutive sentence the court imposed was authorized by law because the court was authorized to impose consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a sentence imposed by the judge when the parties agree to it and it falls within the statutory range.

State v. Wingert, Unpublished Decision (5-15-2006) · filed 2006-05-15(D)(1)

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. ... Although this case may not present a classic scenario of a case wherein the sentence was "recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case" neither objected to the trial court's statements concerning the potential sentence it would impose upon appellant's plea of guilty. ... Appellant's sentence does not exceed the statutory range; therefore, it is authorized by law.

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

State v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2006) · filed 2006-06-22(D)

Therefore, because Jackson's sentence was authorized by law, was recommended jointly by his counsel and the prosecution, and was imposed by a sentencing judge, the sentence is not subject to review. R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of ordinary or plain error in a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the court when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (8-4-2006) · filed 2006-08-04(D)

R.C. 2953.08 (D) was enacted pursuant to authority conferred on the General Assembly by Article IV , Section 3 (B)( 2 ) of the Ohio Constitution to enact laws providing for the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals. It is therefore jurisdictional, and bars our review of any error assigned concerning an agreed sentence the court imposed when the sentence is one authorized by law, whether ordinary or plain error.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of an authorized sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the sentencing judge, including agreed restitution.

State v. Phillips, Unpublished Decision (8-11-2006) · filed 2006-08-11(D)

R.C. 2953.08 (D) relevantly provides that "[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section [dealing with grounds for appeal for a felony offense] if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by the sentencing judge." {¶ 13} It is undisputed that the sanction of restitution is authorized by law. See R.C. 2929.18 (A)(1) (providing that a trial court may order an offender to pay restitution to the victim of the offense). Because the restitution sanction imposed in the current case was both agreed-upon and authorized by law, it 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. Cremeens, Unpublished Decision (11-13-2006) · filed 2006-11-13(D)

Here, Cremeens concedes that he and the prosecution submitted a joint sentencing recommendation that the court impose maximum, consecutive sentences, and that the court followed their joint recommendation. Therefore, so long as the sentences are authorized by law, R.C. 2953.08 (D) provides that they are not subject to appellate review.

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

State v. Kimble, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2006) · filed 2006-11-17(D)(1)

Although Kimble lodges a Foster violation due to the nature of the sentences imposed by the trial court, agreed upon sentences are not subject to appellate review. ... Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1), "[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 lawful sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the sentencing judge; the record can support a joint recommendation without an express agreement.

In Re Gerken, Unpublished Decision (12-18-2006) · filed 2006-12-18(D)

R.C. 2953.08 (D), which was not excised by the Court's decision in State v. Foster , 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". ... Although this case may not present a classic scenario of a case wherein the sentence was "recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case" the record before us supports such a conclusion.

A sentence within the statutory range cannot be appealed under § 2953.08(D)(1) when the parties jointly recommend it and the sentencing judge imposes it.

State v. Giesey, Unpublished Decision (12-26-2006) · filed 2006-12-26(D)(1)

Therefore, the sentence the trial court imposed fell within the statutory range and was authorized by law. Since Giesey's sentence was jointly recommended, authorized by law, and imposed by the sentencing judge, he cannot appeal his sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a sentence agreed to by the parties and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Haney, Unpublished Decision (10-20-2006) · filed 2006-10-20(D)

When sentences are agreed by parties and imposed by a sentencing judge, the sentence is not subject to review. R.C. 2953.08 (D).

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. Bower, Unpublished Decision (11-30-2006) · filed 2006-11-30(D)

Because Appellant's sentence was authorized by law, was recommended jointly by his counsel and the prosecution, and was imposed by the sentencing judge, the sentence is not subject to appellate review. R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of an agreed sentence imposed after a guilty plea, but permits review of whether the plea complied with Crim.R. 11(C).

State v. Cortez, Unpublished Decision (1-25-2007) · filed 2007-01-25(D)

The State maintains that the provisions of R.C. 2953.08 (D) bar defendant from challenging his sentence. While this is true, defendant is not challenging his sentence but rather the voluntariness of his plea. "While R.C. 2953.08 (D) forecloses review of the actual sentences imposed by the judge pursuant to an agreed sentence upon a plea of guilty, it is still proper for this court to review the judge's compliance with the dictates of Crim.R. 11 (C), which governs the taking of guilty pleas."

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

State v. Canady, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2007) · filed 2007-01-26(D)

An agreed sentence, authorized by law, is not subject to appellate review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a lawful sentence jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the sentencing judge, including a request for resentencing under Foster.

State v. Hall, Unpublished Decision (2-1-2007) · filed 2007-02-01(D)(1)

We have no jurisdiction to review agreed upon sentences that are not contrary to law. Therefore, agreed upon sentences are not subject to the State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , mandate to vacate sentences made under S.B. 2.

A sentence authorized by law and jointly recommended by the defendant and the State is not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D).

State v. Carrico, Unpublished Decision (2-5-2007) · filed 2007-02-05(D)

In sum, because appellant's sentence was authorized by law and jointly recommended by him and the State, it is not subject to appellate review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar a sentencing appeal when the parties agreed only to a sentencing range, rather than a specific sentence imposed by the court.

State v. Long, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2007) · filed 2007-03-01(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1), "[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." ... On the contrary, in the case sub judice, the trial court did make the prohibited findings in support of the sentence it imposed because the parties agreed only to a range of sentences, not a particular sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) precludes review of a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law.

State v. Webb, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2007) · filed 2007-03-27(D)

In this case, the sentence imposed by the trial court fell within the statutory range and, therefore, was authorized by law. Because appellant's sentence was jointly recommended and authorized by law, R.C. 2953.08 (D) precludes review of same.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a sentence jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial court.

State v. Smith, 5-06-30 (4-9-2007) · filed 2007-04-09(D)

Both Smith and the State are correct that R.C. 2953.08 (D) bars appellate review of a sentence that has been jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial court.

Section 2953.08(D) does not prevent review of an agreed-upon sentence under the constitutional authority of State v. Foster.

State v. Lynn, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007) · filed 2007-02-02(D)

Accordingly, we conclude that R.C. 2953.08 (D) does not preclude the reversal of an agreed-upon sentence upon the authority of State v. Foster , and to the extent that the holdings in State v. Davis , supra, and State v. Berryman , supra, are inconsistent in that regard, those holdings are overruled.

Section 2953.08(D) does not bar review of an agreed sentence based on judicial factfinding held unconstitutional by Foster.

State v. Sage, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007) · filed 2007-02-02(D)

"[A] defendant who has agreed to the sentence the court imposed thereby waives his or her right to appellate review of that sentence when that sentence is one authorized by law." R.C. § 2953.08 (D). ... Carson predated the announcement of Foster . In determining to impose greater than minimum sentences on the aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and weapon under disability charges, and to order the concurrent sentences on those charges to be served consecutively to the life sentence, the court engaged in the judicial factfinding that Foster held unconstitutional. As such, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

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

State v. Miniard, Unpublished Decision (2-5-2007) · filed 2007-02-05(D)(1)

A sentence is not reviewable where it is authorized by law, recommended jointly by the defense and the prosecution, and imposed by a sentencing judge. R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1).

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

State v. Heath · filed 2007-02-08(G)(2)

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 for resentencing, if it clearly and convincingly finds either that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(D) or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Seals, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2007) · filed 2007-03-01(D)(1)

We have no jurisdiction to review agreed upon sentences that are not contrary to law. Therefore, agreed upon sentences are not subject to the State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , mandate to vacate sentences made under S.B. 2.

A sentence agreed to in a plea agreement and authorized by law is not subject to review under § 2953.08.

State v. Starner, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2007) · filed 2007-03-09(D)(1)

Appellant's sentence was part of a negotiated plea agreement and is authorized by law, therefore, the sentence is not subject to review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of an agreed-upon sentence unless the sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Allen, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2007) · filed 2007-03-30(D)

The cooperation agreement appellant signed has the same effect as an agreed-upon sentence; both appellant and the state agreed that, in exchange for his cooperation, appellant would not receive a sentence exceeding 16 years total. As appellant recognizes, an agreed-upon sentence is not subject to appellate review unless it is not "authorized by law." R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of an agreed-upon sentence unless it is not authorized by law.

State v. Foster, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2007) · filed 2007-03-30(D)

An agreed-upon sentence is not subject to appellate review unless it is not "authorized by law", pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an agreed sentence recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial court.

State v. Strickland, 21682 (4-13-2007) · filed 2007-04-13(D)(1)

Furthermore, in this case the trial court imposed an agreed sentence recommended by the parties, and accordingly, Defendant's sentence is not reviewable on appeal. R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1).

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. Cobb, 06ca3076 (4-17-2007) · filed 2007-04-17(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 the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by the sentencing judge." ... Because the sentence imposed upon Cobb was not only an agreed sentence, but also a sentence authorized by law, we overrule appellant's second assignment of error.

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

State v. Battle, 06ap-863 (4-19-2007) · filed 2007-04-19(G)(2)(b)

While Foster gives trial courts the freedom to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range without making findings or giving reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than minimum sentences, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's sentencing decision absent clear and convincing evidence that either (1) the record does not support the sentence, or (2) the sentence is clearly contrary to law. State v. Webb , Franklin App. No. 06AP-147, 2006-Ohio-4462 , citing State v. Maxwell , Franklin App. No. 02AP-1271, 2004-Ohio-5660 ; R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b).

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

State v. Tewolde, 06ap-764 (5-3-2007) · filed 2007-05-03(G)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G), an appellate court may modify a sentence or remand for resentencing if the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds either the record does not support the sentence, or the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Geddes, 88186 (5-31-2007) · filed 2007-05-31(G)(2)

Although we apply a de novo standard of review, we will not disturb the imposed sentence on appeal unless we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law. Id.; R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal of a sentence agreed to by the parties and imposed by the court.

In Matter of Lee J., S-06-030 (5-18-2007) · filed 2007-05-18(D)(1)

Therefore, we find that appellant and the state agreed upon a sentence. The court imposed the agreed sentence with the exception that the court reduced the juvenile detention to one year rather than imposing the two-year recommendation. Therefore, appellant cannot appeal his sentence. R.C. 2152.13 (E)(3) and R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1).

A sentence within the statutory range that both parties recommend and the sentencing judge imposes is not subject to appeal under § 2953.08(D)(1).

State v. Baird, 06-C0-4 (6-26-2007) · filed 2007-06-26(D)(1)

The sentence the trial court imposed fell within the statutory range and, therefore, was authorized by law. Since appellant's sentence was jointly recommended, authorized by law, and imposed by the sentencing judge, he cannot appeal that sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) precludes appellate review of a sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the judge; the joint recommendation can occur without a prior agreement.

State v. Ahmad, Unpublished Decision (8-27-2007) · filed 2007-08-27(D)(1)

Although it is more typical that the parties jointly recommend a sentence as part of a plea agreement, a joint recommendation, for purposes of the statute, can occur without a prior agreement. See, e.g., In re Lee J. , Sandusky App. No. S-06-030, 2007-Ohio-2400 , ¶ 19. Therefore, we do not address Ahmad's arguments because R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) precludes appellate review.

Section 2953.08(D) insulates a jointly recommended sentence from appellate review because the parties agreed that the sentence is appropriate.

State v. Haney, 06ca105 (9-28-2007) · filed 2007-09-28(D)

The General Assembly enacted R.C. 2953.08 (D) to insulate a jointly recommended sentence from review precisely because the parties agreed that the sentence is appropriate.

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. Gordon, Ct2007-0011 (10-12-2007) · filed 2007-10-12(D)(1)

Appellant's sentence was part of a negotiated plea agreement and is authorized by law, therefore, the sentence is not subject to review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar review of a jointly recommended sentence when the appeal rests on a right preserved outside § 2953.08(A) and (B).

State v. Amos, 21792 (10-19-2007) · filed 2007-10-19(D)(1)

The error Defendant assigns does not implicate any right of appeal that R.C. 2953.08 (A) expressly confers. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that his sentence was jointly recommended, our review of the error Defendant assigns is not barred by R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a sentence agreed to by both parties and imposed by the trial court.

State v. Gillespie · filed 2007-06-29(D)

Accordingly, that sentence is not reviewable on appeal. R.C. 2953.08(D).

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

State v. Tomlinson, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2007) · filed 2007-09-05(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) 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." ... Therefore, we do not address Tomlinson's arguments because R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) precludes appellate review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) forecloses an appeal when the trial court accepts a negotiated sentence.

State v. Henderson, 2006ca108 (7-6-2007) · filed 2007-07-06(D)(1)

Furthermore, the trial court accepted the sentence which had been negotiated by Henderson's counsel and the State of Ohio. Thus, an appeal is foreclosed under R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1).

Section 2953.08(A) does not permit a sentence appeal based solely on a claim that the sentence was too harsh or an abuse of discretion.

State v. Scott, 21927 (7-27-2007) · filed 2007-07-27(A)

We agree with the State that Scott's argument that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence that was too harsh is prohibited by law.

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

State v. Smith, 06-Be-64 (9-27-2007) · filed 2007-09-27(D)(1)

As we indicated in our opinion addressing Smith's direct, delayed appeal ( State v. Smith , 7th Dist. No. 42, 2007-Ohio-4990 ), Smith cannot appeal his sentence because the three-year sentence was agreed to as part of a felony plea agreement between himself and the State, was later imposed by the sentencing court, and was otherwise authorized by law (i.e., within the statutory range of sentences for second-degree felonies). R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D) precludes appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence unless it is unauthorized by law.

State v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (11-30-2007) · filed 2007-11-30(D)

He received a jointly-recommended sentence, which precludes appellate review unless unauthorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence unless the sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Rice, Unpublished Decision (12-7-2007) · filed 2007-12-07(D)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), jointly recommended sentences are not subject to appellate review unless it is not authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the sentencing judge when the sentence is authorized by law.

Cleveland v. West Shore Realty, Unpublished Decision (12-20-2007) · filed 2007-12-20(D)(1)

The sentence in this case was imposed as part of the plea bargain reached by the City and appellant. Therefore, if the agreed-upon sentence is authorized by law, it is not subject to further review. ... Accordingly, we hold that the sentence was authorized by law, and appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.

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

State v. Brown, 07ca4 (1-16-2008) · filed 2008-01-16(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) 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." ... As such, R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) precludes appellate review.

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. Esposito, 06 Ma 116 (12-18-2007) · filed 2007-12-18(D)

Furthermore, we have held many times that an agreed sentence is not appealable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), which 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." ... The trial court in this case sentenced Appellant to the precise sentence recommended by the parties, and therefore, the sentence is not subject to review.

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

State v. Pannell, 89352 (3-6-2008) · filed 2008-03-06(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1), "[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." A careful review of the three hearings regarding appellant's guilty plea, his motion to withdraw that guilty plea, and his sentencing shows that all three elements of R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) were met in the instant case.

Section 2953.08(D) bars an appeal of a jointly recommended sentence accepted by the court when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Hawkins, 07 Je 14 (3-18-2008) · filed 2008-03-18(D)

Consequently, if the jointly recommended sentence that was accepted by the court was authorized by law, Hawkins cannot appeal the sentence.

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

Amstutz v. Eberlin, 07-Be-49 (3-31-2008) · filed 2008-03-31(D)(1)

Second, petitioner's sentence was an agreed upon sentence. The trial court's judgment entry indicates that the fourteen-year prison term was agreed upon by both petitioner and prosecution, and the court adopted the joint recommendation. R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) 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."

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. Green, 07ca33 (5-8-2008) · filed 2008-05-08(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) 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." ... Therefore, we find that Green's sentence is not subject to review by this court.

A jointly recommended felony sentence is barred from review when the imposed aggregate and individual terms match the recommendation, even if the court groups concurrent terms differently.

State v. Knisely, 5-07-37 (5-12-2008) · filed 2008-05-12(D)(1)

Although the trial court combined the charges in a slightly different arrangement in order to reach the eight year aggregate sentence set forth in the plea agreement, the distinction is without any practical difference. ... Accordingly, we find that a review of Knisely's sentence is barred pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a serious youthful offender sentence when it is authorized by law, jointly recommended by the parties, and imposed by the sentencing judge.

In Re J.R.R., 23784 (3-26-2008) · filed 2008-03-26(D)(1)

The Sixth District found R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) applicable to serious youthful offender dispositional sentences. This Court finds such application appropriate. ... R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) 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." ... Accordingly, the juvenile's sentence was authorized by law.

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. Turrentine, 1-08-18 (6-30-2008) · filed 2008-06-30(D)(1)

Accordingly, we find that a review of Turrentine's sentence is barred pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence that falls within the range agreed to by the parties.

State v. MacKendrick, 22405 (7-18-2008) · filed 2008-07-18(D)

Under these circumstances Defendant's sentence was an "agreed sentence" that is not reviewable on appeal per R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecutor and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Melendez, Wd-07-052 (8-1-2008) · filed 2008-08-01(D)(1)

A sentence is not subject to appellate review if the sentence "has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecutor in the case, and is imposed by the sentencing judge." R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1). Appellant specifically asked the trial court to accept the joint recommendation of sentencing. Thus, we find that appellant's sentence is not subject to appellate review.

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. Moore, 22365 (8-22-2008) · filed 2008-08-22(D)(1)

The six-month sentence imposed in this case was jointly recommended by Moore and by the State as part of the plea bargain. Therefore, it is not reviewable for any alleged non-compliance with the requirements of R.C. 2929.13 (B), which is the very ground upon which Moore wishes us to review the propriety of his sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) generally bars an appeal from a jointly recommended sentence accepted by the trial judge, but Section 2953.08 does not govern a challenge to the validity of a plea agreement.

State v. Gibson, 07 Ma 98 (9-5-2008) · filed 2008-09-05(D)

Normally, R.C. 2953.08 (D) bars a defendant from appealing a sentence that has been jointly recommended by both the prosecutor and the defendant and is accepted by the trial judge. ... Thus, in this instance, R.C. 2953.08 (D) does not bar Appellant from raising this issue on appeal. Furthermore, Appellant is primarily arguing that his plea was invalid, and the challenge of a plea agreement is not governed by R.C. 2953.08 , which deals solely with sentencing issues.

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

State v. Thigpen, 07 Ma 186 (9-18-2008) · filed 2008-09-18(D)(1)

A criminal defendant cannot appeal a sentence that 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)(1).

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. Thomas, 08-Je-1 (9-19-2008) · filed 2008-09-19(D)

R.C. 2953.08 (D) specifically 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." (Emphasis added.) Here appellant's sentence is within the statutorily authorized range, was recommended jointly, and was imposed by the sentencing judge. Thus, even if appellant had filed a timely notice of appeal or post-conviction petition, he could not challenge his sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars direct 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. Tisdale, 2007-T-0122 (10-17-2008) · filed 2008-10-17(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1), we may not hear this matter by way of direct appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1)’s limit on reviewing jointly recommended sentences applies to fines and court costs because they are part of the sentence.

State v. Nolan, 08ca3225 (11-21-2008) · filed 2008-11-21(D)(1)

Fines and court costs are "punishment" and, hence, part of the "sentence." Thus, R.C. 2953.08 (D) would apply here.

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. Harris, 08 Ma 30 (11-26-2008) · filed 2008-11-26(D)

If a 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," then it is not reviewable on appeal. R.C. 2953.08 (D); State v. Mathis , 109 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2006-Ohio-855 , 846 N.E.2d 1 , at ¶ 24. Harris and the State of Ohio agreed to a four year sentence in exchange for Harris' plea. The trial court imposed two sentences of four years, to be run concurrently. Harris' sentence is authorized by law, as it is within the sentencing range prescribed by R.C. 2929.14 (A)(3). Harris' final three assignments of error will not be reviewed on appeal and are meritless.

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. Ellis, 2007-Ca-46 (12-31-2008) · filed 2008-12-31(D)

{¶ 20} R.C. 2953.08 (D), which was not effected by the Court's decision in State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 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." {¶ 21} Under the circumstances of the case at bar, we find that the appellant agreed to the sentence imposed. Accordingly, appeal is precluded by R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal of a jointly recommended sentence accepted by the court.

State v. Lassiter, 08 Je 11 (3-11-2009) · filed 2009-03-11(D)(1)

A jointly recommended sentence that is accepted by the court is not appealable. R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1).

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

State v. Brown, 2008 Ca 33 (4-24-2009) · filed 2009-04-24(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1) 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." ... Brown's arguments fail; his sentence is within the statutory range, it was recommended to the trial court by Brown and the State, and it was imposed by a sentencing judge.

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. Quarles, Ct2008-0053 (5-1-2009) · filed 2009-05-01(D)(1)

We find the reasoning in State v. Rockwell , Stark App. No. 2004CA00193, 2005-Ohio-5213 , ¶ 20-21 , to be applicable to this case: ... "In short, we find that appellant was sentenced in accordance with a jointly recommended sentence that was authorized by law. Appellant's sentence, therefore, is not subject to review."

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

State v. Delarosa, 2007ca34 (8-15-2008) · filed 2008-08-15(D)

The sentence imposed by the trial court in this case, one year, is clearly authorized by law, was jointly recommended by both the defendant and the prosecution, and was imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, Defendant's sentence constitutes an "agreed sentence" that is not reviewable on appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars an appeal of a sentence jointly recommended by the parties and accepted by the trial judge.

State v. Tribble, 07 Ma 205 (3-19-2009) · filed 2009-03-19(D)

We also note that, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), a criminal defendant is not permitted to appeal a sentence that is jointly recommended and that is accepted by the trial judge.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed on convictions that should have merged as allied offenses, because that sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Underwood, 22454 (9-19-2008) · filed 2008-09-19(D)(1)

In light of the State's concession, Underwood's multiple sentences were improperly imposed on convictions the court was required by R.C. 2941.25 to merge. Those multiple sentences were not authorized by law, and our review of the error assigned is not precluded by R.C. 2953.08 (D).

An agreed felony sentence that is authorized by law is not reviewable on appeal for errors in imposing it.

State v. Simmons, 22412 (10-10-2008) · filed 2008-10-10(D)

Simmons' sentence is within the range prescribed by R.C. 2929.14 (A)(1). Therefore, it is one authorized by law. "When a sentence is authorized by law and was jointly recommended by the State and the defendant, any error in imposing the sentence is not reviewable on appeal. R.C. 2953.08 (D)." State v. Davis , Montgomery App. No. 21047, 2006-Ohio-4005 . Simmons' potential assignment of error is overruled.

An agreed sentence is reviewable on appeal if it is not authorized by law.

State v. Barajas-Larios · filed 2008-10-17(D)(1)

In order to be nonreviewable per R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), an agreed sentence the court imposes must be one that is “authorized by law.” If the sentence is one not authorized by law, then the fact that it was one to which the parties agreed does not bar appellate review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review under the section when a sentence is authorized by law, jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecutor, and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Smith, 06-Ca-112 (10-17-2008) · filed 2008-10-17(D)(1)

The State argues that Smith's sentence is not reviewable by this court because it was an agreed sentence. See R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1). That section provides that a sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08 if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecutor in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge. ... All of the State's arguments for overruling Smith's assignments of error are well taken.

Section 2953.08(D) makes a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law unreviewable on appeal.

State v. Allah, 08ca0035 (12-19-2008) · filed 2008-12-19(D)

The sentence imposed was authorized by law. Under these circumstances Defendant's sentence constitutes an "agreed sentence" that is not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits appellate review of whether a jointly recommended sentence improperly fails to merge allied offenses.

State v. Sawyer · filed 2010-03-16(D)(1)

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, as to the court of appeals’ holding that it was without authority to review appellant’s second and third assignments of error, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with State v. Underwood.

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. Rayburn · filed 2010-11-18(D)(1)

Therefore, because of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), this court may not review Rayburn’s sentence or consider his first assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(D) allows review of a jointly recommended sentence when any part of the sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Waiters · filed 2010-11-24(D)

When a court imposes a sentence pursuant to a plea agreement and any part of that sentence is not authorized by law, the exception to appealability in R.C. 2953.08(D) does not apply.

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

State v. Kryling · filed 2011-01-18(D)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08, a sentence is not subject to review when the sentence is (1) authorized by law; (2) jointly recommended by the parties; and (3) imposed by the sentencing judge.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of an authorized sentence imposed by the judge only when both the defendant and the prosecution recommend it.

State v. Taylor · filed 2011-03-30(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), "[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section [appeals based on felony sentencing guidelines] 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." Although the trial court, appellant, and defense counsel agreed to the sentence, the prosecutor did not.

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. Myers · filed 2011-04-01(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) prohibits review of a sentence under these circumstances, stating: “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)(1) precludes appellate review of a sentence that is jointly recommended and authorized by law.

State v. Triplett · filed 2011-08-25(D)(1)

Moreover, Triplett’s sentence was jointly recommended and is authorized by law, so R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes our review.

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

State v. Roebuck · filed 2012-04-27(D)(1)

As we recently noted in State v. DeWitt, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24437, 2012-Ohio-635, agreed sentences are not reviewable on appeal. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) 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.”

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

State v. Adkins · filed 2012-05-30(D)(1)

Therefore, because of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), this court may not review Adkins’s sentence or consider his assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence when it includes multiple convictions for allied offenses.

State v. Sanders · filed 2012-08-09(D)(1)

Nevertheless, we do not find that defense counsel and the State’s recommendation regarding allied offenses precludes our review, considering the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in Underwood that “R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar appellate review of a sentence that has been jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the court when the sentence includes multiple convictions for offenses that are allied offenses of similar import.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 33.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence that includes multiple convictions for allied offenses of similar import.

State v. Underwood · filed 2010-01-05(D)(1)

We hold that R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar appellate review of a sentence that has been jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the court when the sentence includes multiple convictions for offenses that are allied offenses of similar import.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar review when the prosecution and defendant did not agree on the sentence imposed.

State v. Fry · filed 2011-04-19(D)(1)

What distinguishes the facts in this case from the exception of right to appeal is that there was no agreement as to sentence, there was no discussion during the plea of the relinquishment of the right to appeal, and in particular, no agreement as to the sentence for the tampering conviction which is the subject of this appeal.

Section 2953.08(D) does not bar a sentencing appeal when the plea agreement contains no agreed sentence.

State v. McPherson · filed 2011-06-23(D)

“It is well-established that a sentence that is agreed upon as part of a negotiated plea, and that does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence applicable to the crime, is not subject to appellate review pursuant to R.C. § 2953.08(D).” State v. Yeager, Carroll App.No. 03CA786, 2004-Ohio-3640, ¶ 21 (additional citations omitted). However, in the case sub judice, the record indicates that the plea agreement did not include a recommended sentence; instead, the parties agreed that the case would be referred for a presentence investigation. ... In these circumstances, we find appellant has not waived his right to challenge his sentence upon direct appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Turner · filed 2011-12-23(D)(1)

Defendant agreed to a sentence within the sixteen to twenty year range, both Defendant and the State jointly recommended that sentence, and the trial court imposed the jointly recommended sentence. Furthermore, the sentence imposed, sixteen years, is authorized by law because it is less than the total maximum aggregate sentence that Defendant faced on all counts, which was over forty years with the firearm specifications. Under those circumstances, Defendant’s agreed upon sentence is not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of an agreed sentence, but the bar did not apply where the record did not clearly show an agreed sentence and the judge retained discretion to choose between community control and prison.

State v. Garza · filed 2012-01-20(D)(1)

But, the record does not clearly reveal whether this was an agreed sentence as contemplated by the statute. Moreover, although we have previously held that sentencing within an agreed range of years can be an “agreed sentence,” State v. Carson, 2d Dist. Montgomery App. No. 20285, 2004–Ohio–5809, ¶ 20, 31, we hesitate to extend the “agreed sentence” definition to include one where the court must exercise its discretion whether to place a defendant on community control or to impose a prison term. Therefore we will review the defendant’s argument.

A sentence within a jointly recommended range is not reviewable on appeal when the sentencing judge imposes it and it is authorized by law.

State v. DeWitt · filed 2012-02-17(D)(1)

Dewitt agreed to a sentence within the sixteen to twenty year range, both he and the State jointly recommended that sentence, and the trial court imposed the jointly recommended sentence. Additionally, the sentence imposed, sixteen years, is authorized by law because it is less than the total maximum aggregate sentence that Dewitt faced on all counts, which was over forty years with the firearm specifications. Accordingly, Dewitt’s agreed upon sentence is not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of an authorized sentence imposed within a range agreed to by the prosecution and defense.

State v. Parks · filed 2012-05-04(D)(1)

Because Parks’s sentence is authorized by law, the range was agreed to by both the State and the defense, and the sentencing court imposed it, Parks has waived his right to appeal that sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) does not bar a defendant from challenging a sentence on direct appeal when the plea agreement contains no agreed sentence.

State v. Hill · filed 2012-06-07(D)

“It is well-established that a sentence that is agreed upon as part of a negotiated plea, and that does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence applicable to the crime, is not subject to appellate review pursuant to R.C. § 2953.08(D).” ... However, in the case sub judice, the record indicates that the plea agreement did not include a recommended sentence; instead, the parties agreed that the case would be referred for a presentence investigation. ... In these circumstances, we find Appellant has not waived his right to challenge his sentence upon direct appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence when the plea agreement stipulates that the offenses were committed with separate animus and as separate events.

State v. Lemasters · filed 2012-07-05(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides an exception to a defendant’s general right to appeal his sentence. ... Here, the recommended sentence agreed to by the state and Lemasters as part of their plea bargain specifically included a stipulation that the rape and gross sexual imposition were committed with a separate animus and constituted separate events. Under Underwood, therefore, Lemasters’s sentence is not reviewable.

Section 2953.08(D) does not bar plain-error review of an agreed sentence that imposes multiple punishments for allied offenses.

State v. Anderson · filed 2012-07-27(D)

Thus the imposition of multiple punishments for allied offenses of similar import is reviewable under plain error even if a defendant has entered into a plea bargain and even if the sentence was an agreed sentence under R.C. 2953.08(D).