Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

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. Rammel · filed 2012-08-17(D)(1)

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.” ... Under these circumstances, Defendant’s agreed-upon sentence is not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D) does not bar review of a challenge to the validity of a plea that led to an agreed sentence.

State v. Floyd · filed 2011-01-27(D)

However, because Appellant is arguing that his plea was invalid, R.C. 2953.08, which deals solely with sentencing, is not controlling.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) generally bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the judge, unless the sentence is unauthorized by law.

State v. Hawes · filed 2012-11-21(D)(1)

It is well-settled that a sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review on appeal if it has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution and is imposed by a sentencing judge. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1); State v. Kelley, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25014, 2012-Ohio-4623, ¶ 4; State v. DeWitt, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24437, 2012-Ohio-635, ¶ 13. Although an exception to this principle exists if the sentence imposed by the trial court is not authorized by law, we have recently held that the failure to include the identity and/or date of the prior conviction does not demonstrate that a mandatory sentence is unauthorized by law, where a defendant admits that such a prior conviction exists.

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 a sentencing judge.

State v. Stanley · filed 2013-02-01(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08 governs appeals based on felony sentencing guidelines, and R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) 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.” ... Stanely’s sentence is authorized by law. R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). Her sentence was recommended jointly by the State and Stanley, and it was imposed by a sentencing judge.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence when the appeal claims that multiple sentences violate the allied-offenses rule.

State v. Taylor · filed 2013-02-06(D)(1)

The Ohio Supreme Court held in State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, at paragraph one of the syllabus, that when multiple sentences are “imposed for multiple convictions on offenses that are allied offenses of similar import in violation of R.C. 2941.25(A), R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar appellate review of that sentence even though it was jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the court.” ... Thus, because appellant can appeal his sentence on this issue, we now turn to the merits of his assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars a direct appeal of a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law and imposed by the trial court.

State v. Baker · filed 2013-03-08(D)(1)

A jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law and that is accepted and imposed by the trial court is not subject to direct appeal.

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

State v. Morris · filed 2013-04-29(D)(1)

“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.” ... Therefore, it is not necessary for us to address Morris’s argument as it pertains to the lawfulness of his sentence, because the court's imposition of non-minimum, consecutive sentences in this case was done as part of a joint sentencing recommendation and is not subject to review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of an agreed sentence imposed by the court when it is authorized by law, but an agreed sentence that is not authorized by law remains reviewable.

State v. Kelley · filed 2012-10-05(D)(1)

We have held many times that agreed sentences authorized by law are not reviewable on appeal. ... However, if an agreed sentence imposed by the trial court is 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 of a sentence that is authorized by law, jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution, and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Midlam · filed 2012-11-30(D)(1)

We have held many times that agreed sentences authorized by law are not reviewable on appeal. ... The trial court’s nine-year sentence was within the permissible range for a first degree felony, and both the State and Midlam agreed to that sentence.

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

State v. Estep · filed 2012-12-28(D)(1)

First, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes appellate review of a sentence that the prosecution and defense jointly recommend, the sentencing judge imposes and the law authorizes.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence and provides that abuse of discretion is not the standard of review.

State v. Spencer · filed 2013-01-22(G)(2)

In particular, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides the following regarding an appellate court’s review of a sentence on appeal. The court hearing an appeal * * * shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court. The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

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

State v. Billeg · filed 2013-01-28(G)

We note that the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, establishes a two-part test utilizing an abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of felony sentencing decisions under R.C. 2953.08(G). While we cite to this court’s precedential clear and convincing evidence standard adopted by the three dissenting justices in Kalish, we note that the outcome of our decision here would be the same under the plurality’s two-part test.

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

State v. Hargrove · filed 2013-05-08(G)(2)

An appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence only if it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... On these facts, where the trial court calculated conflicting jail-time- credit amounts, and this court cannot confirm that the final allowance was correct, we hold that Hargrove has demonstrated that his sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Grasso · filed 2013-05-09(G)(2)

If an appellate court clearly and convincingly finds either that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then “the appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.”

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. Graves · filed 2013-05-30(G)(2)

Rather, under the new provision, if we “clearly and convincingly” find that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]” or (2) that “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then we “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or [we] may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.”

Section 2953.08(D)(1) precludes appellate review of a sentence within the statutory range when both parties agreed to it and the sentencing judge imposed it.

State v. Schneider · filed 2013-06-20(D)(1)

Therefore, because Schneider’s agreed nine-year sentence was within the statutory range, was agreed to by both Schneider and the state as part of a plea agreement, and was imposed by the sentencing judge, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes us from reviewing Schneider’s first assignment of error.

When § 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not apply, the appellant must show under (G)(2)(b) that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Shanks · filed 2013-06-26(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not apply in this case; therefore, appellant must demonstrate his sentence was contrary to law under subsection (G)(2)(b).

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

State v. Ogle · filed 2013-07-26(D)(1)

The record reflects this was an agreed sentence and our review indicates it is not contrary to law. We agree Appellant waived her right to appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a sentence agreed to by the parties and imposed as agreed.

State v. Wheeler · filed 2013-08-02(D)(1)

The parties jointly agreed that Mr. Wheeler would plead guilty to rape and receive three years in prison (the minimum on a first degree felony). The trial court abided by the parties’ agreement. Therefore, his sentence is not reviewable under O.R.C. §2953.08(D)(1). ... Based upon our review of the entire record, we find no flaws in appellate counsel’s factual or legal conclusions.

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

State v. Watkins · filed 2013-09-27(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may vacate a sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing if the sentence is contrary to law.

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. Chionchio · filed 2013-09-30(D)

However, we first note that an agreed sentence is not appealable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D) (stating 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.”); see also State v. Esposito, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 06-MA-116, 2007-Ohio-7220, ¶17.

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

State v. Rashid · filed 2013-10-09(G)

Before this court can modify or vacate a felony sentence, we must “clearly and convincingly find[]”: that the sentences imposed were “contrary to law[;]” or that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires the appellate court to determine whether the record supports the sentencing court’s required findings and whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

First this court must determine if the court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) are clearly and convincingly unsupported in the record.

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

State v. Lewis · filed 2013-10-17(G)(2)(b)

In this case, only R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) is applicable. Thus, if we clearly and convincingly find that the defendant’s sentence is contrary to law, then we may modify Lewis’s sentence or vacate it and remand for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to uphold a felony sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Snider · filed 2013-10-21(G)(2)

Therefore, the imposed sentence does not run afoul of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence is contrary to law before an appellate court may reverse it on that ground.

State v. Kellogg · filed 2013-10-24(G)(2)

The record does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a sentence that the defendant and prosecution agreed to, the court imposed, and the law authorizes.

State v. Barnett · filed 2013-11-06(D)

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) permits review of a jointly recommended sentence to determine whether it complies with mandatory sentencing requirements.

State v. Downey · filed 2013-11-07(D)(1)

Thus, if these requirements are met, we do not have jurisdiction to review the sentence. ... Thus, we must entertain the appeal to determine if the court comported with statutory sentencing requirements.

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

State v. Gooding · filed 2013-11-20(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08 governs an appeal of sentence for felony. ... 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. ... After reviewing the record, we find the trial court's sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Bailey · filed 2013-12-18(G)(2)

Under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may only modify or vacate Bailey’s sentence if we “clearly and convincingly find” that either (1) the record does not support the mandatory sentencing findings, or (2) that the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits review of a jointly recommended sentence that fails to comply with a mandatory sentencing provision.

State v. Fisher · filed 2013-05-13(D)(1)

“A sentence is ‘authorized by law’ and is not appealable within the meaning of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.”

An agreed sentence remains reviewable for plain error involving multiple punishments for allied offenses unless the parties stipulated or agreed on the allied-offenses issue.

State v. Estes · filed 2014-03-03(D)

However, although failing to object, absent a stipulation or agreement on the allied offenses issue, the imposition of multiple punishments for allied offenses is reviewable under the plain error analysis "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)."

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a lawful sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the sentencing judge, including a resentencing within the parties’ agreed range.

State v. Rammel · filed 2014-03-28(D)(1)

Perhaps more importantly, Rammel’s aggregate sentence range had been agreed to by the parties. In Rammel I we stated: “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.’ ” Rammel, 2012-Ohio-3724, ¶ 32, supra. That statute still applies here. Given that the new sentences are authorized by law, and that we found no issues with arguable merit in the re-sentencing itself, and the prohibition from review of an agreed sentence, we find there is no arguable merit to the contention that the trial court should have simply reduced the aggregate sentence by two years upon remand.

Section 2953.08(D) permits an appeal of a sentence imposed under a plea agreement if the sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Stump · filed 2014-03-31(D)

However, under R.C. 2953.08(D) the Ohio General Assembly made the sentences arising from those agreements challengeable if the sentence is not authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence only if the sentence is unauthorized by law.

State v. Livingston · filed 2014-04-18(D)(1)

Therefore, we may only review the earned-credit portion of Mr. Livingston’s sentence if it is unauthorized by law.

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

State v. Houston · filed 2014-05-14(D)(1)

Further, Appellant’s sentence complies with the requirements set forth in Underwood and therefore, is authorized by law. His sentence is, therefore, not subject to review.

A jointly recommended sentence that complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions is not subject to appellate review under § 2953.08(D).

State v. McFarland · filed 2014-06-30(D)(1)

Because appellant’s sentence fully comported with all mandatory sentencing provisions and was recommended jointly by appellant and appellee, the sentence is not subject to review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) precludes review of consecutive sentences when the defendant and prosecution jointly recommend the sentence and the defendant stipulates to consecutive terms.

State v. Davis · filed 2014-11-26(D)(1)

Conversely, the trial court’s detailed colloquy here establishes that the parties’ plea agreement included Davis’s and his trial counsel’s stipulation to consecutive sentences. Under these circumstances, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) insulated his sentences from review for compliance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar an appeal when the defendant did not agree to the sentence being challenged.

State v. Johnson · filed 2014-10-30(D)(1)

However, in this case appellant did not agree to the restitution order, so R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) is not applicable.

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

State v. Miller · filed 2014-12-24(D)

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

A jointly recommended sentence is reviewable under § 2953.08(D)(1) if it omits mandatory findings required for consecutive sentences.

State v. Bell · filed 2015-01-26(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides in pertinent part 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 a sentencing judge.” (Emphasis added.) However, because “a sentence is only authorized by law if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions[,]” this court and the Ohio Supreme Court have held that an agreed sentence between the state and the defendant does not relieve the trial court of its obligation to make the statutorily required findings to impose consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of an agreed sentence, including a challenge based on allied offenses.

State v. Moore · filed 2014-12-24(D)

Even if the offenses were allied, R.C. 2953.08(D) forecloses review of the actual sentence imposed by the trial court pursuant to an agreed sentence upon entering a plea of guilty.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a lawful sentence within a range jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution.

State v. Chattams · filed 2015-02-06(D)(1)

Lawful agreed sentences are not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar review of an agreed sentence on an allied-offenses claim when the plea agreement is silent on that issue.

State v. Ewing · filed 2015-09-18(D)(1)

Here, the plea agreement is silent on the issue of allied offenses. Therefore, in accordance with Underwood, we find meritless the state’s argument that appellant should be precluded from raising the issue of allied offenses because he received the benefit of the bargain.

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

State v. Fortune · filed 2015-09-30(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), “[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section 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 must decide then, whether Fortune’s prison term for the firearm specifications, the only part of the sentence he challenges, was “authorized by law.” ... The court’s sentence was authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a sentence within a jointly recommended range when the sentence complies with mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Collini · filed 2015-11-20(D)(1)

Collini agreed to a sentence between 12 and 20 years in prison for multiple offenses, two of which were first-degree felonies, and the trial court imposed a sentence within that range. Collini does not claim that the trial court failed to comply with any mandatory sentencing provisions in imposing the 20-year sentence. Although Collini apparently believes his sentence is unduly harsh and that the record, particularly the presentence investigation report, does not support a 20-year sentence, the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C) for the imposition of consecutive sentences. Under these circumstances, Collini cannot appeal his sentence.

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

State v. Gray · filed 2015-12-04(D)

However, a sentence is not subject to review if: (1) the sentence was authorized by law, (2) the sentence was recommended by both the prosecutor and the appellant, and (3) the sentence was imposed by the sentencing judge. R.C. 2953.08(D).

An agreed sentence may not be appealed when the defendant and state agree to it, the trial court imposes it, and it is authorized by law.

State v. Estes · filed 2015-09-21(D)(1)

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.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence unless the sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Brown · filed 2016-01-29(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a sentence that was jointly recommended by the state and defendant unless the sentence is not “authorized by law.”

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial court, including agreed consecutive sentences.

State v. Beerman · filed 2016-02-29(D)(1)

Further, we join our sister districts in holding that where, as here, the parties jointly recommend consecutive sentences, the trial court was not required to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in order to impose consecutive sentences, nor is the sentence subject to appellate 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. Welch · filed 2016-03-03(D)(1)

However, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a “sentence imposed upon a defendant is not s​​ubject 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 of Welch’s plea and sentencing hearings, we find that all three elements of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) are met in the case at hand.

Section 2953.08(D) generally bars an appeal from a jointly recommended sentence accepted by the trial court, but permits review of a challenge to the plea underlying that sentence.

State v. Turner · filed 2015-12-14(D)

Although R.C. 2953.08(D) normally precludes a defendant from appealing a jointly recommended sentence that has been accepted by the trial court, an exception exists that authorizes an appellate court to review a defendant’s challenge to the validity of the plea that was the basis for the agreed sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal of an agreed sentence imposed under a plea agreement unless the sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Black · filed 2016-02-04(D)(1)

Where, as here, an agreed sentence is imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may not appeal the sentence unless it is not authorized by law.

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

State v. Hamlin · filed 2016-03-23(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) establishes a statutory limit on a court of appeals’ jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the defendant’s sentence. ... Hamlin waived the merger issue he now asserts on appeal. Because the sentences complied with the mandatory-sentencing provisions, they were authorized by law. Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to review the sentences, and the first assignment of error is overruled.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a claim that the trial court misapplied consecutive sentencing factors when the sentence was jointly recommended.

State v. Owens · filed 2016-03-21(D)(1)

However, we have concluded that a claim that the court misapplied the consecutive sentencing factors under the facts and circumstances of the case is not properly reviewable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) where the sentence was jointly recommended.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence with nonmandatory consecutive terms even when the trial judge does not make consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Sergent (Slip Opinion) · filed 2016-04-27(D)(1)

If a jointly recommended sentence includes nonmandatory consecutive sentences, and the trial judge fails to make the consecutive-sentence findings set out in R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), the sentence is nevertheless “authorized by law,” and therefore is not appealable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence only when the sentence complies with all sentencing provisions; a sentence imposed for allied offenses without merger remains reviewable.

State v. Carnahan · filed 2016-05-31(D)(1)

“Even if a sentence is jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the court, an appellate court is not precluded from reviewing it if a sentence is imposed on multiple counts that are allied offenses, because such a sentence is unauthorized by law.”

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar review of a sentence when a plea agreement states the possible prison term but does not jointly recommend that term as the penalty for a community control violation.

State v. Kegley · filed 2016-05-16(D)(1)

Thus, Kegley did not agree to the imposition of maximum, consecutive sentences for a violation of community control and the sentence is subject to judicial review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not require a trial court to follow a joint sentencing recommendation and limits appellate review of jointly recommended sentences.

State v. Mayle · filed 2016-10-21(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not require a trial court to follow a joint recommendation and, as this Court has previously held, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides that a case is not properly reviewable on appeal when a sentence is jointly recommended.

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

State v. Perkins · filed 2017-01-17(D)(1)

Accordingly, Perkins’ sentence is not subject to review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), and as such, his sole assigned error lacks merit.

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

State v. Daniels · filed 2017-02-17(D)

It is well settled that under R.C. 2953.08(D), a sentence that has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution and imposed by a sentencing judge is not subject to appellate review if it is authorized by law. ... But in Underwood, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the argument now presented by the state on the issue of waiver and jointly recommended sentences, explaining that a sentence that does not comport with all mandatory sentencing provisions, including R.C. 2941.25, the allied-offenses statute, is not authorized by law. ... Accordingly, the state’s argument in support of waiver is not persuasive and we reject it.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence jointly recommended by the parties, including consecutive terms implicit in their agreed sentencing range.

State v. Ramsey · filed 2017-06-19(D)(1)

Appellant’s sentence was therefore authorized by law pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) and not subject to review on appeal.

A sentence within a jointly recommended range counts as jointly recommended under § 2953.08(D)(1) and is not subject to appeal when authorized by law and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Shontee · filed 2017-07-14(D)(1)

We have held that a sentence within a jointly-recommended range is a jointly-recommended sentence for purposes of R.C. 2953.08. ... Shontee is not entitled to appeal his agreed sentence.

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

State v. Utley · filed 2017-07-21(D)(1)

Upon our review of the record and the sentencing entries, we find that the trial court complied with the mandatory sentencing provisions when it imposed the jointly recommended sentence. Therefore, appellant is precluded from challenging his agreed-upon sentence on appeal.

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

State v. McColor · filed 2017-09-07(D)(1)

"To be 'authorized by law' under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence must comport with all applicable mandatory sentencing provisions." Sergent at ¶ 29. ... As discussed above, McColor's sentence was authorized by law in that the trial court complied with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) limits appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence that complies with all applicable mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Fleischer · filed 2017-09-21(D)(1)

However, in this case, the trial court imposed the sentence jointly-recommended by the defendant and the prosecutor; thus, this court's review is even more limited. "[I]f a jointly recommended sentence imposed by a court is 'authorized by law,' then the sentence 'is not subject to review.' " State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-2696, 69 N.E.3d 627, ¶ 15, quoting R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). "To be 'authorized by law' under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence must comport with all applicable mandatory sentencing provisions." Sergent at ¶ 29.

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

State v. Johnson · filed 2017-09-22(D)(1)

Notably, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) limits our review of the imposition of an agreed-upon sentence 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.”

Section 2953.08 bars appellate review of an agreed sentence when the trial court imposes that sentence, but the bar does not apply when the court imposes a different sentence.

State v. Rose · filed 2017-11-06(D)(1)

An agreed sentence is not subject to appellate review if the trial court imposes it. ... However, in this case the trial court did not impose the agreed upon sentence, instead choosing, as is permitted by law, to impose a different sentence.

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

State v. Ross · filed 2017-12-16(D)(1)

We find that the agreed sentence was jointly recommended, imposed by the sentencing judge, and authorized by law. Because, it is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), we do not undertake a review of the merits of Ross's fifth assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended, nonmandatory consecutive sentence imposed without consecutive sentencing findings.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2017-12-18(D)(1)

“[W]hen a trial judge imposes such an agreed sentence without making those findings,” the sentence is “not reviewable on appeal” pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), which allows only limited appeals in the case of jointly recommended sentences.

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

State v. Howard · filed 2017-12-28(D)(1)

Thus, all three of the requirements set forth in R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) apply. Consequently, appellant's sentence is not subject to appellate review.

A jointly recommended sentence that complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions is not appealable under § 2953.08(D)(1).

State v. Contento · filed 2018-01-12(D)(1)

Contento’s sentence is not appealable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

A sentence within a jointly recommended sentencing range is not reviewable on appeal if it is authorized by law, even when it includes nonmandatory consecutive sentences that the defendant did not expressly agree to.

State v. Grant · filed 2018-05-03(D)(1)

Accordingly, when a trial judge imposes nonmandatory consecutive sentences within a jointly recommended sentencing range, the sentence is "authorized by law" and is not subject to review on appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), regardless of any express agreement to consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Lee · filed 2018-05-10(D)(1)

A defendant has no right to appeal his sentences if they are jointly recommended by the parties, the trial court imposes the agreed sentences, and the sentences are “authorized by law.”

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

State v. Huffman · filed 2018-03-29(D)(1)

First, an agreed sentence authorized by law is not appealable. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) expressly deems such sentences as nonappealable. Appellate courts are precluded from reviewing them.

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

State v. Payton · filed 2018-03-30(D)(1)

We reject Payton’s assignment of error because a sentence imposed for aggravated murder is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) and the sentence imposed for rape was an agreed sentence, which is likewise not subject to review under R.C.2953.08(D)(1); it was jointly recommended by the parties, authorized by law, and imposed by the sentencing court.

A jointly agreed maximum sentence cap alone does not make a sentence unreviewable under § 2953.08(D)(1).

State v. Perry · filed 2018-05-03(D)(1)

We are not persuaded that Perry's agreement with the state to cap his sentence amounted to an "agreed sentence" under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence within an agreed range when the sentence is authorized by law and imposed by the sentencing judge, even if the judge omits consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Shawhan · filed 2018-06-22(D)(1)

Shawhan’s sentence meets the other R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) requirements and, under Sergent, the consecutive sentence, though not supported by the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, is authorized by law. Therefore, Shawhan’s consecutive sentence argument is not subject to appellate review.

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

State v. Fontanez · filed 2018-07-19(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to appellate 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. ... Because his sentence was authorized by law, jointly recommended, and imposed by a sentencing judge, Fontanez has no grounds on which to appeal his sentence.

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

State v. Buford · filed 2018-07-27(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) states 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.” ... Based on this interaction between the court and appellant, we are satisfied appellant was properly notified that he was waiving his right to appeal by agreeing to a community control sanction.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal of nonmandatory consecutive sentences within an agreed sentencing range when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Glaze · filed 2018-06-07(D)(1)

Thus, because a trial court’s imposition of nonmandatory consecutive sentences within an agreed sentencing range is a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law and not reviewable on appeal under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), the first and third assignments of error are overruled.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits review of an agreed sentence that fails to comply with a mandatory sentencing provision.

State v. Straley · filed 2018-07-27(D)(1)

The State next argues that any error by the trial court in relying on res judicata was harmless because it imposed an agreed sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), which 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.” ... Here, we have already stated that the trial court was statutorily required to impose mandatory prison terms for the three second-degree felony sexual battery counts. Thus, the trial court’s failure to follow the mandatory statutory provisions rendered Straley’s sentence void, and unauthorized by law. Again, although the State’s reliance on Straley I’s rationale is understandable, the State’s claim that the agreed sentence could not be reviewed is meritless.

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. Green · filed 2018-09-04(D)(1)

The second and third conditions of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) were also met; to wit: the sentence was jointly recommended by the state and appellant and the trial court imposed the recommended sentence. Hence, appellant’s sentence is not subject to appellate review.

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

State v. Riggs · filed 2018-09-04(D)(1)

Upon review, we find appellant's sentence comports with the law, including R.C. 2947.23(A) pertaining to costs as argued under Assignment of Error I, and is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law and imposed by the sentencing judge, even when the judge omits findings for discretionary consecutive sentences.

State v. Morgan · filed 2018-08-10(D)(1)

An agreed sentence that involves a discretionary decision to impose consecutive sentences is “authorized by law” and unreviewable on appeal even if the trial court fails to make the consecutive-sentence findings.

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

State v. Patterson · filed 2018-10-11(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), however, a sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to appellate review if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and has been imposed by the sentencing judge. This limitation on a defendant’s ability to bring an appellate challenge of an agreed sentence applies equally to cases involving range agreements, such as this case, and cases involving specific term agreements. ... Because his sentence was authorized by law, jointly recommended, and imposed by a sentencing judge, Patterson’s sentence is not subject to appellate review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal when the defendant and prosecution jointly recommend a sentence, the judge imposes it, and it complies with mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Caldwell · filed 2018-08-23(D)(1)

In other words, a sentence that is “contrary to law” is appealable by a defendant; however, an agreed-upon sentence may not be appealed if (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. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). If all three conditions are met, the defendant may not appeal the sentence.

A jointly recommended sentence is not reviewable under § 2953.08(D)(1) when it is authorized by law and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Sweet · filed 2018-11-01(D)(1)

Here the record shows that both the defendant and the state agreed to the sentence. At the plea and sentencing hearing the parties stated that it was a jointly recommended sentence and the trial court stated it would follow the recommendation of the parties. The four-year sentence is authorized by law under R.C. 2929.14(A)(2), which authorizes a two to eight-year incarceration for a second-degree felony. And, it was imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, Sweet’s sentence is not reviewable.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar an appeal of a negotiated sentence imposed without statutory authority, because that sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Williams · filed 2018-11-13(D)(1)

For the same reasons, we also reject the state’s argument that Williams’ may not appeal his sentence because he entered a negotiated plea pursuant to R.C 2953.08(D). A sentence imposed without statutory authority is not “authorized by law” as required by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Buckner · filed 2018-12-10(D)(1)

As the record clearly demonstrates that the parties had a jointly recommended sentence that was authorized by law and was followed by the trial court, we find that a review of Buckner’s sentence is barred under 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. Keller · filed 2018-12-17(D)(1)

A review of the record demonstrates that the sentence imposed by the trial court is not appealable by the Appellant. ... Thus, Appellant’s sentence is barred from review by this Court.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of an authorized, jointly recommended sentence only if the sentencing judge imposes it.

In re M.A. · filed 2019-03-11(D)(1)

However, 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." (Emphasis added.) Because a jointly recommended and agreed upon sentence is unreviewable only if the sentence "is imposed by a sentencing judge," M.A. would have been well within his rights to appeal his sentence if the common pleas court had rejected the parties' agreed sentence at the sentencing hearing.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence within a jointly recommended range even if the agreement does not expressly address consecutive sentences.

State v. Witcher · filed 2019-04-11(D)(1)

The record reveals that Witcher’s sentence was authorized by law, despite the absence of an explicit agreement to consecutive sentences beyond those statutorily required for firearm specifications. ... Additionally, the sentence was jointly recommended. The recommended sentence at the plea was between 18 and 25 years. The court imposed a sentence of 19 years. Because Witcher’s sentence fits within the three criteria under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), his sentence is not subject to appellate review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law.

State v. Hullinger · filed 2019-07-29(D)(1)

Based on our previous analysis, we conclude that appellant’s jointly-recommended sentence was “authorized by law” for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), and we therefore find we lack authorization to consider appellant’s remaining arguments concerning said sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of the sentencing court’s motivations when a jointly recommended sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Rodriquez · filed 2019-08-15(D)(1)

However, the court’s motivations are not subject to review. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Jones · filed 2019-12-02(D)(1)

The second and third conditions of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) were also met; to wit: the sentence was jointly recommended by the state and appellant, and the trial court imposed the recommended sentence. Hence, appellant’s sentence is not subject to appellate review.

An agreed sentencing range counts as a joint recommendation under § 2953.08(D)(1), so a sentence within that range is not reviewable when the statute’s other conditions are met.

State v. Howard · filed 2019-12-12(D)(1)

We have previously rejected arguments that attempt to distinguish between an agreement to a range of possible sentences and an agreement to a specific sentence for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) analysis. ... Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Howard’s sentence is not reviewable.

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

State v. Lindsay · filed 2020-01-16(D)(1)

We further note that the sentences for all counts were within the statutory ranges for each offense and otherwise complied with all mandatory sentencing provisions. Therefore, Lindsay’s sentences were authorized by law and are not reviewable.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar review when the parties did not agree to a sentence or sentencing range.

State v. Baker · filed 2020-01-16(D)(1)

Although R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) states, “[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,” there is nothing in the record to suggest that the parties had agreed to a sentence or a sentencing range.

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

State v. Miller · filed 2020-02-12(D)(1)

Consequently, a sentence authorized by law, and imposed pursuant to a joint recommendation, is generally not subject to appellate review. ... In the case at bar, we conclude that appellant’s sentence is (1) based upon her negotiated plea; (2) authorized by law; and (3) the product of appellant’s and appellee’s joint recommendation.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars 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. Andrews · filed 2020-02-21(D)(1)

The record reflects that the underlying felony sentence was authorized by law, was jointly recommended by the parties, and was adopted and imposed by the sentencing judge. As such, the instant case is not subject to further felony sentence review pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

A jointly recommended felony sentence imposed by the sentencing judge is not reviewable under § 2953.08(D)(1) when it is authorized by law.

State v. Hooks · filed 2020-04-24(D)(1)

We further find since the sentence is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), we decline to address the merits of appellant’s argument.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the judge when it is authorized by law; agreed nonmandatory consecutive terms can be authorized without consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Phillips · filed 2020-05-04(D)(1)

However, under 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.” ... As we have found that Phillips’s sentence was imposed pursuant to a joint recommendation, we need not discuss whether the trial court made consecutive-sentence findings to conclude that Phillips’s consecutive sentences are authorized by law. Consequently, Phillips’s sentence is authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not require a trial court to advise a defendant of its bar to review before imposing a jointly recommended sentence within the statutory range.

State v. Johnson · filed 2020-05-07(D)(1)

Finally, we note that a trial court is not required to advise a defend- ant of the R.C. 2953.08(D) bar to appellate review before imposing a jointly recommended sentence that falls within the statutory range of available sentences.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar an appeal when the parties recommend a sentence to the trial court but do not obtain an agreed sentence.

State v. Swortchek · filed 2020-05-07(D)(1)

We initially note that this was not an “agreed sentence” that would prevent Swortchek a right to appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Rather, the case before us reflects that this was an agreement between the state and Swortchek that was recommended to the trial court.

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

State v. Smith · filed 2020-05-08(D)(1)

Thus, Smith’s sentence was not appealable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), and any appellate argument suggesting the sentence is contrary to law would be wholly frivolous.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence within a jointly recommended range, including nonmandatory consecutive terms, even without an express agreement to consecutive terms.

State v. Smith · filed 2020-06-25(D)(1)

In light of the foregoing, we find that the trial court’s imposition of an aggregate 24 years in prison, which included nonmandatory consecutive sentences within the agreed recommended sentencing range, is not reviewable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal challenging a jointly recommended sentence on the ground that it fails to comply with R.C. 2929.11.

State v. Ortiz · filed 2020-08-10(D)(1)

Here, the trial court imposed a prison sentence that was jointly recommended by Ortiz and the State. Therefore, Ortiz is barred from challenging the sentence on the basis that it failed to comply with R.C. 2929.11.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the judge, but does not bar review of the plea’s validity.

State v. Buggs · filed 2020-08-12(D)

A sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and the State in a criminal case, and imposed by the trial judge, is not reviewable on appeal. R.C. 2953.08(D); State v. Coleman, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 03AP-219, 03AP-220, 2003-Ohio-7234, ¶ 11. However, an appellate court can review the validity of the plea leading to the jointly recommended sentence. See generally James, supra, at ¶ 7.

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. Dapice · filed 2020-09-04(D)(1)

Because Dapice’s sentence for aggravated burglary was authorized by law, jointly recommended by the parties, and accepted by the trial court, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), this court cannot review the sentence on appeal.

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. Merrick · filed 2020-07-17(D)(1)

Our independent review confirms that Merrick’s sentences were not appealable, because appellate review is precluded by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar appellate review of the propriety of a no-contest or guilty plea.

State v. Jones · filed 2020-08-03(D)(1)

However, contrary to the State’s contention, appellate review of the propriety of a no-contest or guilty plea is not precluded by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a sentence within a jointly recommended range when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Williams · filed 2020-09-17(D)(1)

Because the sentences imposed by the trial court were within the sentencing range jointly recommended by Williams and the state as part of the plea agreement and were authorized by law, Williams’ sentences are not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Merrick · filed 2020-11-06(D)(1)

As discussed, a jointly recommended sentence which is imposed by the trial court and which is authorized by law eliminates appellate review of the sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a sentence within a jointly recommended range when the sentencing judge imposes it and it complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions, including review of whether the judge considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Hernandez · filed 2020-11-19(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) prohibits us from reviewing Hernandez’s sentence, and his appeal that the trial court erred in applying R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is not properly before us to review.

Section 2953.08(D) bars an appeal of jointly recommended consecutive sentences when they are authorized by law, even if the trial judge did not make consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Penick · filed 2020-12-22(D)

However, as noted in the trial court’s sentencing entry, consecutive sentences were jointly recommended by Appellant and Appellee under R.C. 2953.08(D). Pursuant to State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94 (2016), jointly recommended sentences where the trial judge fails to make the consecutive- sentence findings are, nevertheless, authorized by law; therefore, are not appealable.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) generally bars an appeal of a jointly agreed sentence that the trial court imposes and that is authorized by law, but an appellant may challenge the sentence on allied-offense grounds.

State v. Jackson · filed 2021-03-29(D)(1)

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, an appellant can argue that an agreed sentence is invalid if the challenge raises an allied offense argument. Underwood at ¶ 26.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) treats a jointly recommended sentencing range as a jointly recommended sentence, which is unreviewable if it complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Adkins · filed 2021-04-15(D)(1)

A jointly recommended sentencing range is a “jointly recommended sentence” for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). ... A sentence is “authorized by law” and not appealable within the meaning of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) “if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.”

A jointly recommended felony sentence remains appealable under § 2953.08(D)(1) when it is not authorized by law.

State v. Watson · filed 2021-04-16(D)(1)

Appellant’s sentence is not authorized by law without a consideration of youth as a mitigating factor and articulation of such consideration, and thus the sentence is appealable pursuant to statute.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence within a jointly recommended sentencing range, including nonmandatory consecutive sentences.

State v. Andrews · filed 2021-05-20(D)(1)

Because the sentences imposed by the trial court were within the sentencing range jointly recommended by Andrews and the state as part of the plea agreement and were authorized by law, Andrews’ sentences, including the imposition of consecutive sentences, are not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D) does not bar an appeal challenging the voluntariness of a guilty plea, even when the sentence was jointly recommended.

State v. Conner · filed 2021-05-24(D)

However, since Conner is arguing that his plea was invalid on the basis that it was not voluntary, R.C. 2953.08, which deals solely with sentencing, is not controlling.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar sentence review when the prosecution makes no sentencing recommendation.

State v. Brown Suber · filed 2021-07-06(D)(1)

The sentence in the present case was not jointly recommended; the state refrained from recommending any sentence. As such, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) is not applicable.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence that the judge imposes if the sentence complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Likens · filed 2021-07-12(D)(1)

Therefore, because (1) both Likens and the state agreed to the jointly recommended sentence, (2) the trial court imposed the jointly recommended sentence, and (3) the jointly recommended sentence was "authorized by law," the trial court's decision to sentence Likens to the agreed upon sentence of two consecutive, mandatory 11-year prison is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) treats a jointly recommended sentencing range as a jointly recommended sentence for purposes of its limit on appellate review.

State v. T.B. · filed 2021-06-24(D)(1)

A jointly recommended sentencing range is a “jointly recommended sentence” for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1)’s bar on reviewing a jointly recommended sentence does not apply to a restitution amount that was not part of the negotiated plea agreement.

State v. Wright · filed 2021-08-02(D)(1)

Therefore, we disagree with the state’s claim that the provision in R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) prohibiting review of a sentence “recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution” applies as to the restitution amount ordered by the trial court.

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

State v. Lenneman · filed 2021-08-09(D)(1)

Therefore, because (1) both Lenneman and the state agreed to the jointly recommended sentence, (2) the trial court imposed the jointly recommended sentence, and (3) the jointly recommended sentence was authorized by law, the trial court's decision to sentence Lenneman to the agreed upon sentence consecutive to his current term of incarceration is not reviewable under 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 the sentencing judge.

State v. Howell · filed 2021-08-27(D)(1)

Moreover, our ability to review Mr. Howell’s sentences is further limited because the court sentenced him within the terms of the plea agreement. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) 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)(1) bars review of an authorized sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the judge, including an agreed prison term imposed after community control is revoked.

State v. Bahnsen · filed 2021-09-03(D)(1)

Here, too, the parties agreed to the sentence to be imposed if Bahnsen’s community-control sanctions were revoked. The prison terms—36 months for the third-degree felony and 18 months for the fourth-degree felony—were authorized by law. The sentence is, therefore, not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Duckett · filed 2021-09-03(D)(1)

Duckett’s jointly recommended sentence was authorized by law and pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) is not reviewable on 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. Singleton · filed 2021-12-08(D)(1)

As discussed under the fifth assignment of error, the trial court imposed the jointly-recommended sentences and the sentences were authorized by law. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), the sentences are 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. Castro · filed 2021-12-20(D)(1)

Moreover, under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), 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.” ... As we find that the trial court imposed the parties’ stipulated sentence, we need not discuss whether the record supports the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 to conclude that Castro’s sentence is authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized felony sentence jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the sentencing judge, including challenges to the court’s discretionary sentencing choices.

State v. Summit · filed 2021-12-27(D)(1)

However, under 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.” ... However, because Summit’s sentence was jointly recommended by the parties and was followed by the trial court, we need not review Summit’s arguments.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence only if the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Good · filed 2021-12-27(D)(1)

Under 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.” ... Here, although Good’s sentence was recommended jointly by the defendant and prosecution and imposed by the trial court, for the reasons detailed above, Good’s sentence 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.

State v. Carnicom · filed 2022-03-28(D)(1)

Here, Carnicom’s sentence was jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial court. ... Based on our review of the record, Carnicom’s sentence is authorized by law. ... Consequently, Carnicom’s sentence is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) precludes appellate review of an authorized sentence imposed within a jointly recommended sentencing range.

State v. Stearns · filed 2022-06-16(D)(1)

Based on the argument and concession presented, under the unambiguous language of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), we have no authority to review the imposed sentences.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the court only if the sentence complies with all applicable mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Dirocco · filed 2022-09-07(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), appellate courts cannot review a sentence if it is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and prosecution, and is imposed by the sentencing court. State v. Douglas, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 17 BE 0052, 2018-Ohio-5389, ¶ 17. “To be ‘authorized by law’ under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence must comport with all applicable mandatory sentencing provisions.”

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars a sentencing appeal when the court imposes a jointly recommended sentence, including one within an agreed-upon range.

State v. Everett · filed 2022-09-23(D)(1)

We have recognized that R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not authorize a sentencing appeal if the sentence is jointly recommended by the prosecution and the defendant and the trial court imposes the recommended sentence. ... We also repeatedly have held that a sentence within an agreed-upon range is a jointly-recommended sentence under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Newman · filed 2022-10-11(D)(1)

However, under 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.” ... As we have found that Newman’s sentence was imposed pursuant to a joint recommendation, we need not discuss the need for the trial court to make consecutive-sentence findings. Consequently, Newman’s sentence is authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence within an agreed range even when the trial court does not make consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Coleman · filed 2022-11-10(D)(1)

Appellate review of the sentences imposed in the underlying cases is expressly precluded under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), and this includes the consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Blessett · filed 2022-11-21(D)(1)

Because the appropriate sentencing statutes were complied with and the prison term was jointly recommended, the sentence is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Castro · filed 2022-12-05(D)(1)

In the present case, the jointly recommended sentence was authorized by law, was recommended by both Castro and the state, and was imposed by the trial court. Pursuant to Sergent, the trial court was not required to make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. As a result, we have no authority to review the imposed sentence and Castro's first assignment of error is overruled.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits review of a disputed community control condition when the parties jointly recommended community control but did not agree on that condition.

State v. Stanaford · filed 2022-12-12(D)(1)

Initially, we observe 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.” R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Here, the parties and the court indicated that there was a jointly recommended sentence of community control sanctions. The court ordered community control and, as part of that sentence, that Stanaford be placed in NEOCAP. Stanaford argued against the imposition of NEOCAP at sentencing, with counsel stating “I think we can release him * * * and see how he does in the community before sending him to NEOCAP.” The State indicated: the court “has a number of things it can do on behalf of the defendant. * * * The Court will * * * have NEOCAP if need be.” Under these circumstances, we will address the merits of whether the imposition of the community control sanction and the conditions constituted error.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence imposed by the sentencing judge within a jointly recommended sentencing range.

State v. Dixon · filed 2022-12-22(D)(1)

As alleged by the state, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) applies, and as such, we are precluded from reviewing Appellant’s sentence and arguments on appeal.

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

State v. Bates · filed 2022-12-27(D)(1)

In this case, Bates’s sentence was jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial court. ... Based on our review of the record, Bates’s sentence is authorized by law. ... Consequently, Bates’s sentence is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Holman · filed 2023-03-09(D)(1)

Because Holman’s sentence was within the recommended sentencing range and was authorized by law, it is not reviewable on appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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. Harris · filed 2023-03-10(D)(1)

We also note that under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) 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, and [the recommended sentence] is imposed by [the] sentencing judge. * * * If all three conditions are met, the defendant may not appeal the sentence.” State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 15-16. Since the three conditions are met in this case, any argument attacking Harris’s sentence would lack any appellate merit.

Section 2953.08(D)(1)’s limit on appellate review of jointly recommended sentences applies to plea agreements with an agreed sentence, a recommended sentencing range, or an aggregate sentencing range for multiple offenses.

State v. Conner · filed 2023-04-13(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)’s limitation on a defendant’s ability to challenge a jointly recommended sentence on appeal applies to sentences imposed pursuant to plea agreements involving an agreed specific term, plea agreements involving a jointly recommended sentencing range and plea agreements involving pleas to multiple offenses with a jointly recommended aggregate sentencing range.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized, jointly recommended sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, including a challenge to the absence of consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Curry · filed 2023-05-11(D)(1)

The alleged failure of the trial court to make the consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) is not subject to review on appeal pursuant to 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. Tellis · filed 2023-05-22(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) 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.” ... Accordingly, the sentence is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08, and appellant’s Assignments of Error Nos. II, III, and IV are overruled.