Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

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

State v. Price · filed 2023-08-14(D)(1)

The sentence in this case was jointly agreed upon by both Price and the State. The trial court imposed the agreed sentence. As discussed above, the sentence was authorized by law. ... Thus, the sentence is not reviewable 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. McFarland · filed 2023-09-21(D)(1)

Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), McFarland’s sentence is not subject to review since it is authorized by law, was jointly recommended, and imposed by the sentencing judge.

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. Swope · filed 2023-09-29(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.” As such was the case here, Swope’s sentence is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar an appeal of a jointly recommended sentence when the sentence fails to comply with mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Eames · filed 2024-01-19(D)(1)

Thus, we cannot say that the trial court’s restitution order “comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions[,]” so it is not “authorized by law,” as required to bar an appeal under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits the defendant and prosecution to agree to alternative jointly recommended sentences.

State v. Harrop · filed 2024-02-12(D)(1)

Contrary to Harrop's argument, the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not foreclose the possibility of an "alternative jointly recommended sentence." The statute refers to "a sentence," that is, in the singular, but there is no explicit prohibition in the statute on a defendant and the state agreeing to more than one jointly recommended sentence.

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. Frazier · filed 2024-02-12(D)(1)

Further, as Frazier has not demonstrated that his jointly recommended sentence was not authorized by law, his sentence is ultimately not reviewable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Whitaker · filed 2024-02-26(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.” ... Here, the parties agreed to a mutual sentencing recommendation that included court costs, court-appointed attorney fees, and laboratory fees. Accordingly, with respect to those components, Whitaker cannot now complain of her bargained for sentence.

A sentence jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecutor and imposed by the judge is not subject to appellate review.

State v. Davis · filed 2024-03-11(D)(1)

Where an agreed sentence is imposed, an argument on the failure to request a PSI is the equivalent of an argument contesting the imposition of the jointly recommended sentence. State v. Melendez, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-07-052, 2008-Ohio-3839, ¶ 15. 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.”

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

State v. St. Valle · filed 2024-03-28(D)(1)

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

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar review of a jointly recommended sentence when the aggregate maximum term was not jointly recommended and is contrary to law.

State v. Cerrato · filed 2024-05-06(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.” ... Here, only Cerrato’s aggregate sentence of a minimum term of 15 years in prison was jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial court. ... Based on our review of the record, we agree that Cerrato’s sentence is not authorized by law and is contrary to law.

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. Chapple · filed 2024-06-13(D)(1)

Thus, Chapple’s consecutive sentences were “authorized by law” and are not subject to appellate review. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Frazier · filed 2024-06-03(D)(1)

In other words, this court cannot review a jointly recommended sentence under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) when the defendant and the state both 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 imposed by the judge when the sentence is authorized by law.

State v. Nutter · filed 2024-06-26(D)(1)

This Court lacks authority to address the merits of his argument pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Bradley · filed 2024-07-16(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. ... As such, we find appellant’s consecutive sentences are not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence when a claim that it is more severe than sentences in other cases does not establish that it is unauthorized by law.

State v. Holbrook · filed 2024-07-26(D)(1)

Because appellant has failed to raise any legal support establishing that a court’s imposition of more severe sentences in his case than sentences imposed in cases with different circumstances somehow makes his jointly recommended sentences not authorized by law and therefore subject to appellate review, we cannot review his sentences under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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. Singer · filed 2024-07-31(D)(1)

The trial court imposed the sentence that was jointly recommended by the parties, and which was within statutory sentencing parameters. Accordingly, this matter is not subject to appeal.

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. Fine · filed 2024-08-01(D)(1)

Finally, the plea and sentence were negotiated and jointly recommended and therefore not reviewable on appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) protects a jointly recommended sentence from appellate review when the court imposes it.

State v. Glenn · filed 2024-08-12(D)(1)

It is not necessary for us to address Glenn’s argument as it pertains to his sentence because the sentence was imposed as part of a joint sentencing recommendation.

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. Simpson · filed 2024-08-19(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) limits an appellate court's ability to review an agreed upon sentence. "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, jointly recommended sentence but does not bar an appeal challenging whether the guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

State v. Richard · filed 2024-09-11(D)(1)

As Appellant points out, the inability to appeal a jointly recommended sentence does not bar a defendant from appealing the judgment of conviction on grounds that the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered (such as due to a trial court’s lacking advisement or due to ineffective assistance of counsel with regards to the plea, as raised in the next assignment of error).

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

State v. Moore · filed 2024-09-16(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.” ... Here, the parties agreed to a restitution value, and thus, with respect to that component, Moore cannot now complain of his bargained for sentence.

A jointly recommended sentence that imposes the mandatory minimum terms for the offenses is authorized by law and cannot be reviewed on appeal.

State v. Shepherd · filed 2024-09-23(D)(1)

It follows then that, here, the trial court’s imposition of the jointly recommended sentence by Mr. Shepherd and the State, which includes a mandatory term of imprisonment of 15 years to life for murder and mandatory terms of 3 years and 5 years on 2 specifications that are required by statute to be served prior to and consecutive to the sentence for murder, which constitutes the mandatory minimum sentence under Ohio law for Mr. Shepherd’s offenses, is likewise authorized by law and unreviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits review of a residential community control condition the defendant opposed, even when the parties agreed to recommend community control.

State v. Wiley · filed 2024-10-28(D)(1)

At the outset, we note that 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.” ... Mr. Wiley strongly opposed the NEOCAP program, preferring a nonresidential program. Thus, we will review appellate counsel’s potential error.

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 2024-11-14(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), which governs appellate review of sentencing, 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 sentence in the instant case was authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not prevent review of a jointly recommended sentence when the trial court failed to fully advise the defendant of the maximum indefinite sentence during the plea.

State v. Penington · filed 2024-11-21(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides that a sentence is not reviewable “if the sentence is authorized by law, has been jointly recommended by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by the sentencing judge.” We recognize that the trial court imposed a sentence within the recommended-agreed range, but we will address the assignment of error because the trial court did not fully comply with Crim.R. 11 when advising Pennington during his plea of the maximum indefinite sentence on the involuntary manslaughter offense.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) has no application to an appeal that does not challenge the jointly recommended sentence.

State v. Nichols · filed 2024-11-22(D)(1)

Because appellant has not appealed his sentence of community control, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) has no relevance to this appeal.

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. Cawley · filed 2024-11-22(D)(1)

In the instant case, the sentence was jointly recommended. R.C. §2953.08(D)(1), which governs appellate review of sentencing, 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) does not bar review when the sentencing judge imposes a sentence different from the parties’ joint recommendation.

State v. Clark · filed 2024-12-04(D)(1)

In this case, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) is inapplicable because even though the trial court stated Clark’s sentence was a “negotiated sentence” in the sentencing entry, it is evident that statement is a clerical error because the parties recommended an aggregate sentence of six to nine years, and the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of seven to ten years. Thus, Clark’s sentence is subject to review under R.C. 2953.08.

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

State v. Moore · filed 2024-12-13(D)(1)

Based on the preceding discussion, the jointly recommended sentence was authorized by law and is not subject to review based on 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. Foster · filed 2024-12-30(D)(1)

In the present case, the trial court imposed a sentence that is authorized by law and was jointly recommended by the parties. As such, appellant'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 that is authorized by law, jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution, and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Sanford · filed 2025-01-24(D)(1)

We find the agreement sentence was authorized by law, was jointly recommended by Appellant and the State, and was imposed by a sentencing judge. Therefore, the sentence is not subject to our 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. Billman · filed 2025-01-24(D)(1)

Thus, pursuant to the statute, we may not review on appeal a sentence that is: (1) authorized by law; (2) was jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution; and (3) was imposed by a sentencing judge.

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. Watts · filed 2025-01-31(D)(1)

Based upon the fact that the appellant entered into a joint agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to Count 1 in exchange for the prosecution’s dismissal of Count 2 and the Repeat Violent Offender Specification attached to Count 1, and an 8 year prison term to be served consecutively, and that sentence is precisely what the trial court imposed, the appellant’s sentence is not subject to 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. Simmons · filed 2025-02-18(D)(1)

Because the sentence was authorized by law, jointly recommended, and imposed by the trial court, Simmons’ sentence is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08.

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

State v. Huntsman · filed 2025-02-20(D)(1)

A defendant may not appeal his or her sentence when “(1) both the defendant and the state agree to the sentence, (2) the trial court imposes the agreed sentence, and (3) the sentence is authorized by law.” State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 16; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). ... Because Appellant cannot appeal his jointly-recommended sentence, it stands to reason that he cannot now argue that his counsel should have argued more vehemently in mitigation of his sentence.

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 a sentencing judge.

State v. Harner · filed 2025-03-03(D)(1)

Based upon the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Harner's sentence is not reviewable by this court because the sentence was a jointly-recommended sentence that was authorized by law and was imposed by a sentencing judge.

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 sentencing judge.

State v. Nash · filed 2025-03-10(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 the sentencing judge.” ... The trial court did not exercise discretion and did not need to independently justify imposing the jointly recommended sentence.

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. Vohs · filed 2025-03-28(D)(1)

“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 prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” 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) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.” State v. Owens, 2016-Ohio-1203, ¶ 8, citing State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1. The sentence in this case comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an imposed, jointly recommended consecutive sentence.

State v. Sowers · filed 2025-04-01(D)(1)

However, a joint recommendation to impose consecutive sentences eliminates the need for a trial judge to make the consecutive-sentence findings set out in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and such a sentence, once imposed, is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). State v. Sergent, 2016-Ohio-2696, ¶30. Accordingly, Sowers' assignment of error is overruled.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence authorized by law and imposed by the sentencing judge, including its agreed consecutive service.

State v. Hawkins · filed 2025-04-07(D)(1)

The sentence imposed and the manner in which it is served is authorized by law and not subject to appellate review 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. Shinal · filed 2025-04-08(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.” The trial court imposed the very sentence that the parties had recommended – that is, community control sanctions. As such, the appellant’s 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. Bell · filed 2025-04-14(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.” ... As such, the appellant’s sentence is not subject to review, and appellate counsel is correct in that the first potential assignment of error is without merit.

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

State v. Williams · filed 2025-04-16(D)(1)

Under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a trial court’s imposition of a jointly- recommended sentence is not subject to review if it is authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) makes a jointly recommended sentence unreviewable if it complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. New · filed 2025-04-30(D)(1)

Moreover, the 12-month sentence on the possession-of-methamphetamine charge was jointly recommended by New and the prosecution. Such sentences are not reviewable. 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) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.” State v. Owens, 2016-Ohio-1203, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1. The 12-month sentence comported with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

A jointly recommended sentence is appealable under subsection (D)(1) when it omits a mandatory sentencing provision and therefore is not authorized by law.

State v. Browne · filed 2025-05-12(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 sentencing provisions.” ... Because the trial court failed to provide the mandatory Reagan Tokes notifications at Browne’s sentencing hearing, his sentence is contrary to law and not authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the judge when the defendant argues that the sentencing court failed to consider the defendant’s youth.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2025-05-16(D)(1)

Ohio courts, including this one, have stated that when a sentence is jointly recommended by the parties, it is not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), even if the sentencing court failed to consider the defendant’s youth. ... Thus, as to the contention that Mitchell’s sentence was not authorized by law, the jointly recommended sentence forecloses that argument.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the court when the sentence complies with mandatory sentencing provisions and the defendant stipulated that the offenses were not allied offenses of similar import.

State v. Menefee · filed 2025-05-29(D)(1)

Thus, because appellant agreed that the offenses were not allied offenses of similar import and because her sentence comported with all mandatory sentencing provisions, her sentence was authorized by law and is not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence when discretionary consecutive terms were imposed without consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Selhorst · filed 2025-07-07(D)(1)

For these reasons, we conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences falls within the criterion of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) and is not subject to review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) precludes review of a jointly recommended sentence imposed by the judge when the defendant’s challenge raises only a statutory issue.

State v. McDonough · filed 2025-07-21(D)(1)

Appellant’s second assignment of error relates to the statutory interpretation of R.C. 2971.01 and does not raise any independent constitutional claims. Therefore, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes our review of this issue.

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. Parker · filed 2025-07-25(D)(1)

In this case, the trial court imposed the ten-year aggregate sentence jointly recommended by the State and Appellant, which was authorized by law. Therefore, Appellant cannot now challenge this sentence on appeal.

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

State v. Cook · filed 2025-08-07(D)(1)

The sentences imposed by the trial court included terms of nonmandatory consecutive sentences. The aggregate length of the sentences fell within the agreed recommended sentence contemplated by the parties as a result of a plea agreement. As such, the sentence and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences are not subject to review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Bliffin · filed 2025-08-11(D)(1)

Accordingly, Bliffin has not demonstrated that the prison terms imposed in these cases were not authorized by law and because the trial court imposed the sentences that were recommended jointly by Bliffin and the State, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes our review of the sentences.

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

State v. Hector · filed 2025-08-11(D)(1)

Because the record reflects the trial court imposed a sentence recommended by both the State and Hector, and the sentence was authorized by law, Hector's sentence is not reviewable on appeal.

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. Hall · filed 2025-08-18(D)(1)

Thus, under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Hall’s sentence is not subject to appellate review.

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

State v. Riggens · filed 2025-08-19(D)(1)

And because the trial court imposed a jointly recommended sentence which is authorized by law, his sentence is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), and we cannot review the merits of the first assignment of error.

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

State v. Manning · filed 2025-08-29(D)(1)

As Manning has not identified any applicable mandatory sentencing provisions that were not adhered to, we find that Manning’s sentence is authorized by law. Therefore, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars our review of Manning’s assignment of error.

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. Smith · filed 2025-09-02(D)(1)

However, because the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case was a jointly recommended and agreed upon sentence that was authorized by law, Smith's first assignment of error is not subject to review by this court in accordance with R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Bibbins · filed 2025-09-12(D)(1)

“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 prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” 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) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.” State v. Owens, 2016-Ohio-1203, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1. The sentence in this case comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

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

State v. Williamson · filed 2025-10-01(D)(1)

That section excepts from our review, however, any sentence that was (1) “recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case,” (2) “imposed by a sentencing judge,” and (3) “authorized by law.” R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Williamson’s sentence satisfies all three criteria, so we cannot review it.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) makes no distinction between mandatory and non-mandatory prison terms when applying its rule for jointly recommended sentences.

State v. Lytle · filed 2025-10-06(D)(1)

Second, by the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), there is no distinction between a mandatory prison term and a non-mandatory prison term.

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, including agreed consecutive sentences.

State v. Hlinovsky · filed 2025-09-10(D)(1)

The court imposed an agreed upon sentence, and under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Appellant cannot appeal the consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of agreed consecutive terms authorized by law even when the court imposes a different underlying prison term.

State v. Thompson · filed 2025-10-22(D)(1)

Therefore, when the trial judge imposed the jointly-recommended sentence on Thompson, without making the consecutive-sentencing findings, the sentence was nevertheless authorized by law and not reviewable on appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence when the trial court’s failure to consider youth-related sentencing factors does not make the sentence unauthorized by law.

State v. Perkins · filed 2025-12-12(D)(1)

As such, the trial court did not exercise its discretion when it imposed the jointly-agreed-upon sentence, it was not required to consider R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b) to independently justify the sentence, Perkins’s sentence is “authorized by law,” and appellate review is not permitted under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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. Gibbons · filed 2025-12-22(D)(1)

Here, each of Gibbons’s sentences were authorized by law and fell within the statutory guidelines for each offense. The sentences, including the aggregate sentence, were jointly recommended by Gibbons and the State. The jointly recommended sentence was imposed by the trial court. As such, Gibbons’s sentence is not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08.

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

State v. Wood · filed 2026-01-26(D)(1)

As mentioned above, the sentence imposed by the trial court was jointly recommended. Wood has made no argument that the sentence falls outside the authorized range or is unauthorized by law in such a manner so as to render it reviewable.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits review of a jointly recommended sentence when it fails a mandatory sentencing requirement that the plea agreement does not address.

State v. Slaughter · filed 2026-02-06(D)(1)

Insofar as the trial court disapproved shock incarceration or placement in an intensive program prison without a finding and supporting reasons, that aspect of Slaughter’s sentence was not authorized by R.C. 2929.19(D). An agreed sentence is authorized by law, and therefore not appealable, if it satisfies “all mandatory sentencing provisions.” State v. Mitchell, 2025-Ohio-1764, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 20. The statutory requirement for a finding with reasons is a mandatory sentencing provision when a trial court disapproves shock incarceration or placement in an intensive program prison and the plea agreement does not address those issues. Therefore, Slaughter’s agreed sentence, which did not address shock incarceration or intensive program prison, does not preclude him from challenging that aspect of the sentence on appeal.

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. Johnson · filed 2026-03-02(D)(1)

“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 prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” 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) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.” State v. Owens, 2016-Ohio-1203, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1. The sentence in this case comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence when the trial court fails to comply with a mandatory sentencing provision, because the sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Runyon · filed 2026-03-09(D)(1)

If the trial court fails to comport with a mandatory sentencing provision within the context of a jointly recommended sentence, Underwood controls—the sentence is not "authorized by law" and therefore it is reviewable on appeal.

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

State v. Jackson · filed 2026-03-12(D)(1)

Because the aggregate sentence imposed by the trial court falls within the jointly recommended sentence agreed to by the parties, Jackson’s sentence is not subject to review.

A sentence authorized by law, jointly recommended by the defendant and prosecution, and imposed by a sentencing judge is not subject to appellate review under this section.

State v. Rollins · filed 2026-02-23(D)(1)

Based upon the fact that the appellant entered into a joint agreement in which she agreed to plead guilty to Count One in exchange for the appellee’s dismissal of the Major Drug Offender Specification set forth in Count One and dismissal of Count 2, that the plea agreement jointly recommended a 9 - 13.5 prison term, and that sentence is precisely what the trial court imposed, the appellant’s sentence is not subject to review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) makes a sentence unreviewable if it is authorized by law, jointly recommended, and imposed.

State v. Wilson · filed 2026-03-19(D)(1)

Under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) there is no such term as an “agreed sentence” or “agreed upon sentence.” The statute only states that the sentence is not reviewable if (1) it is authorized by law; (2) it was jointly recommended; and (3) it is imposed.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits review of a jointly recommended sentence that fails to comply with mandatory postrelease-control notification requirements because the sentence is not authorized by law.

State v. Flecha · filed 2026-03-23(D)(1)

Because the trial court did not comply with this mandatory sentencing provision, Flecha's sentence is not "authorized by law" for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), and we have jurisdiction to review his claim.

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

State v. Glenn · filed 2026-03-25(D)(1)

Here, because we conclude that Appellant’s gun offenses are not allied offenses of similar import subject to merger, and the aggregate sentence is well within the statutory guidelines for the offenses, the jointly recommended sentence is authorized by law and not subject to review on appeal.

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

State v. Donerson · filed 2026-03-26(D)(1)

Furthermore, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence that is jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial court is not subject to review when it is “authorized by law.” Such is the case herein.

A jointly recommended sentence imposed by the sentencing judge is not subject to review under § 2953.08 if it complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Bartos · filed 2026-04-02(D)(1)

“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 prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” 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) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.” State v. Owens, 2016-Ohio-1203, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1. The sentence in this case comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.

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

State v. Hammond · filed 2026-04-06(D)(1)

The sentence in this case was authorized by law, jointly recommended by Appellant and the State, and was imposed by a sentencing judge, and therefore is not subject to this Court’s review on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence when the trial court imposes the agreed minimum term and the maximum term required by law.

State v. Wilson · filed 2026-04-08(D)(1)

Just as the trial court did in Billman, the trial court here imposed the jointly recommended sentence, and its imposition of a ten-and-half year maximum term required by the Reagan Tokes law was simply part of the jointly recommended sentence. Indeed, the plea agreement expressly provided notice to Wilson that he may be subject to a minimum indefinite sentence and a maximum definite sentence. Accordingly, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of Wilson’s sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G).

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

State v. Turner · filed 2026-04-27(D)(1)

However, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes appellate review when a sentence that is authorized by law and jointly recommended by the parties is imposed by the sentencing court.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar appellate review when a defendant consents to sentencing but the parties do not jointly recommend the sentence.

State v. Kintz · filed 2026-05-01(D)(1)

We do not agree with the State’s position that under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Kintz waived his right to appeal his sentence as a matter of law. The record of the sentencing hearing does not reveal that after Kintz waived his evidentiary hearing, he and the State jointly recommended the 36-month prison sentence. Instead, this part of the record demonstrates only that Kintz consented to sentencing after he waived his hearing and admitted CCS violations. Therefore, we review Kintz’s sentence.

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. Mallory · filed 2026-05-01(D)(1)

Thus, because the parties entered into a jointly recommended sentence, 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) permits appellate review of an agreed sentence that is not authorized by law, even if the appellant invited the error.

State v. Tate · filed 2026-06-03(D)(1)

Guided by Brown and Champion, we hold that the invited-error doctrine does not bar an appellant’s challenge to an agreed sentence that was not authorized by law. A contrary holding would be counter to the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), which provides, “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” The legislature clearly intended that agreed sentences not authorized by law could be reviewed on appeal.

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

State v. Rouse · filed 2018-08-15(D)(1)

Rouse has not shown that his sentence runs afoul of the mandatory sentencing provisions that apply in the context of allied offenses. Accordingly, he has not shown that his sentence is ... not authorized by law and may not challenge it on appeal. See R.C. 2953.08(D)(1); Hamlin, 2016-Ohio-1196, at ¶ 7.

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. Zazzara · filed 2019-02-25(D)(1)

Under these circumstances, this Court is precluded from reaching the merits of Zazzara’s assignment of error.

A jointly recommended sentence imposed by the court is not subject to review under § 2953.08(D)(1) if it is authorized by law, including when it contains stipulated restitution and a mandatory fine.

State v. Strickland · filed 2019-09-27(D)(1)

We begin by noting that a jointly-recommended sentence that is imposed by the court is not subject to 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.” ... Any argument that the agreed sentence including stipulated restitution and a statutorily-mandated fine was appealable lacks arguable merit and would be frivolous.

Section 2953.08(D) bars an appeal of jointly recommended sentences except for errors of law in the sentences imposed.

State v. Collins, Unpublished Decision (6-13-2003) · filed 2003-06-13(D)

Under those specific circumstances Defendant's sentences are not appealable. See: R.C. 2953.08 (D).

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. Barnett · filed 2022-12-19(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, since Barnett’s community-control sentence was jointly recommended by the parties and was imposed by the trial court, we need not review ... whether the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 or the sentencing factors listed in R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(C) permits a defendant to seek leave to appeal consecutive sentences when the total term exceeds the maximum prison term for the offense, even if no individual sentence is the maximum.

State v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (2-5-1999) · filed 1999-02-05(C)

While appellant did not receive the maximum sentence for each felony violation, the sentences were ordered to be served consecutively and the total time to be served would exceed the maximum prison term for felonious assault. Therefore, under R.C. 2953.08 (C) appellant has a right to seek leave to appeal his sentence.

Section 2953.08(C) permits an appeal of certain consecutive sentences but does not limit the aggregate sentence to the maximum term for the most serious offense.

State v. Gonzalez, Unpublished Decision (6-30-1999) · filed 1999-06-30(C)

R.C. 2953.08 (C) is merely a basis upon which an appellant can perfect an appeal to this court. The statute does not provide a legal ground upon which to base the merits of an appeal. The right to perfect an appeal of a sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (C) is not a provision that limits the trial court from imposing consecutive sentences for multiple offenses that, in the aggregate, exceed the maximum sentence for the most serious offense.

Section 2953.08(C) permits a defendant to seek discretionary leave to appeal a consecutive sentence or one exceeding the maximum prison term; an assignment of error in the initial appellate brief may serve as the request for leave under App.R. 5(C)(2).

State v. Sanders, Unpublished Decision (4-13-2000) · filed 2000-04-13(C)

R.C. 2953.08 (C) provides, as the state argues, that an appellant may seek leave to appeal the imposition of a sentence when it is consecutive or when it exceeds the maximum prison term allowed. Consideration of such motion is discretionary with the Court of Appeals. ... Accordingly, the state's position is not well taken; we will consider this assignment of error as the request for leave and we will grant that request.

Section 2953.08(C) requires leave to appeal certain consecutive sentences, but an assignment of error included in an appeal as of right can serve as a timely motion for leave.

State v. Walls, Unpublished Decision (9-15-2000) · filed 2000-09-15(C)

First, we note that appellant's appeal is properly before this court, even though she did not comply with the requirement found in R.C. 2953.08 (c) to file a motion in this court for leave to appeal her sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge imposed consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14 (E)(3) or (4) and that the aggregate of the sentences is longer than the maximum sentence that the court could have imposed for appellant's most serious crime. ... Therefore, the following provision of App.R. 5(C) applies to this case and waives any necessity for appellant to file a separate motion to seek leave to appeal her consecutive sentences: "(C)(2) Leave to appeal consecutive sentences incorporated into appeal as of right. When a criminal defendant has filed a notice of appeal pursuant to App.R. 4, the defendant may elect to incorporate in defendant's initial appellate brief an assignment of error pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (C), and the assignment of error shall be deemed to constitute a timely motion for leave to appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (C)."

Section 2953.08(C) permits leave to appeal consecutive sentences when they exceed the maximum prison term for the most serious offense; an equal total does not qualify.

State v. Owens, Unpublished Decision (1-24-2001) · filed 2001-01-24(C)

The maximum term for a conviction of rape alone would be ten years, which does not exceed the term imposed by the court with the consecutive five-year sentences. Thus, Owens' request for leave to appeal the consecutive sentences is denied because "the allegation included as the basis of the motion" is not accurate.

Section 2953.08(C) permits an appellate court to review consecutive sentences exceeding the maximum term for the most serious offense; the court may address the sentence even if the defendant did not properly move for leave to appeal.

State v. Linde, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2001) · filed 2001-06-05(C)

However, R.C. § 2953.08 (C) provides that a defendant may seek leave to appeal a sentence if the trial court has imposed consecutive sentences for multiple offenses under R.C. § 2929.14 (E)(3)(4) and the consecutive sentences exceed the maximum prison term allowed by division (A) of that section for the most serious offense. ... As such, we will address this assignment of error even though Appellant has not properly requested leave to appeal and we would otherwise be free to decline jurisdiction of this issue.

Section 2953.08(C) permits a defendant to seek leave to appeal when consecutive sentences exceed the maximum sentence for the most serious offense of conviction.

State v. Hacker, Unpublished Decision (8-24-2001) · filed 2001-08-24(C)

R.C. 2953.08 (C) permits a defendant to seek leave to appeal where the consecutive sentences imposed exceed the maximum sentence for the most serious offense of which the defendant was convicted. That situation is presented here. Pursuant to App.R. 5(C), Hacker has utilized this assignment of error as his motion for leave to appeal which we will sustain.

Section 2953.08(A)(4) permits an appeal of consecutive sentences for a fourth-degree felony even when the trial court found one or more of the factors listed in section 2929.13(B)(1)(a) through (i).

State v. Walker, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2002) · filed 2002-02-06(A)(4)

The imposition of consecutive terms confers the right to appeal the sentences imposed for a fourth-degree felony, even where, as here, the trial court found the existence of one or more of the factors noted in R.C. 2929.13 (B)(1)(a) through (i). See R.C. 2953.08 (A)(4).

Section 2953.08(C) permits a defendant to seek leave to appeal consecutive sentences when their total exceeds the maximum sentence for the most serious offense.

State v. Myers, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2002) · filed 2002-11-15(C)

Under Ohio law, a defendant may seek leave to appeal when consecutive sentences imposed exceed the maximum sentence for the most serious offense of which the defendant was convicted. See R.C. § 2953.08 (C). In the present case, the maximum sentence for Myers' most serious offense, rape, is 10 years. Given that his aggregate sentence is 12 years, he is permitted to seek leave to appeal the consecutive sentences that he received.

Section 2953.08(C) permits a defendant to seek leave to appeal when consecutive sentences exceed the maximum for the most serious conviction, but does not cap the total sentence at that maximum.

State v. Beverly, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2003) · filed 2003-12-12(C)

A defendant may additionally seek leave to appeal when consecutive sentences imposed exceed the maximum sentence for the most serious offense of which the defendant was convicted. ... Upon review, we are unpersuaded the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to consecutive sentences approximately two and one-half years in excess of the maximum term allowed for his conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.

Section 2953.08(C)'s prior leave requirement for appealing consecutive sentences is superseded by App.R. 5(D) and has no effect.

State v. Milbrandt, Unpublished Decision (10-15-2004) · filed 2004-10-15(C)

However, this court has already held that the prior leave requirement for that section is now superseded by App.R. 5(D), which merges the motion for leave into the error assigned, and because the section and the rule conflict, the prior leave requirement of the statute is void and with no effect.

Section 2953.08(C)'s prior-leave requirement for appealing consecutive sentences is superseded by App.R. 5(D) and has no effect.

State v. Furrow, Unpublished Decision (9-24-2004) · filed 2004-09-24(C)

However, the prior leave requirement of that section is now superseded by App.R. 5(D), which merges the motion for leave into the error assigned. Because the section and the rule conflict in that respect, the prior leave requirement of R.C. 2953.08 (C) is void and of no effect.

Section 2953.08(C) permits a discretionary appeal of consecutive sentences when the total prison term exceeds the maximum term for the defendant’s most serious offense.

State v. Ballard, Unpublished Decision (4-14-2006) · filed 2006-04-14(C)

R.C. 2953.08 (C) and App.R. 5(D) allow the discretionary appeal of consecutive sentences if the total term of incarceration exceeds the maximum term allowed for the most serious offense of which the defendant was convicted.

Section 2953.08(C) permits an appeal of qualifying consecutive sentences but does not limit their length to the maximum term for the most serious conviction.

State v. Campbell, 07-Ca-A-08-0041 (4-28-2008) · filed 2008-04-28(C)

This Court has recognized that "* * * the right to appeal a sentence under R.C. 2953.08 (C) does not mean that consecutive sentences for multiple convictions may not exceed the maximum sentence allowed for the most serious conviction."

Section 2953.08(C)'s leave requirement for appealing consecutive sentences is superseded by App.R. 5(D); the assigned error in an appeal as of right suffices.

State v. Cook · filed 2010-10-04(C)

Consequently, because R.C. 2953.08(C) and App.R. 5(D) conflict, the statutory leave requirement is “void and of no effect.”

Section 2953.08(C) permits review of qualifying consecutive felony sentences when they exceed the maximum prison term for the most serious offense.

State v. Howard · filed 2013-05-13(C)

However, Howard was sentenced to nearly three times in excess of the maximum term allowed for a felony of the first degree. Thus, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(C) the sentence is reviewable.

Section 2953.08(C)'s right to appeal does not prohibit consecutive sentences whose total exceeds the maximum sentence for the most serious conviction.

State v. Collins · filed 2013-06-10(C)

Furthermore, “ * * * the right to appeal a sentence under R.C. 2953.08(C) does not mean that consecutive sentences for multiple convictions may not exceed the maximum sentence allowed for the most serious conviction.”

Section 2953.08(C)(1) permits a defendant to seek leave to appeal consecutive sentences that exceed the maximum term for the most serious offense, but that excess alone does not make the sentences erroneous.

State v. Dudley · filed 2014-12-05(C)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(C)(1), a defendant may seek leave to appeal consecutive sentences imposed under R.C. 2929.14(C)(3) that "exceed the maximum prison term allowed by division (A) of that section for the most serious offense of which the defendant was convicted." "This grant of the right to appeal does not mean, however, that consecutive sentences are erroneous merely because they exceed the maximum sentence allowed for the most serious offense." State v. Graham, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 25934, 2014-Ohio-4250, ¶ 32. Consecutive sentences for multiple convictions may certainly exceed the maximum sentence for the most serious offense. Id.

Section 2953.08(C)(1) allows a defendant to seek leave to appeal certain consecutive sentences but does not cap their combined length at the maximum sentence for the most serious conviction.

State v. Wardlow · filed 2014-12-30(C)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(C)(1) merely allows a defendant to seek leave to appeal; the statute in no way prohibits consecutive sentences for multiple offenses from exceeding the maximum sentence allowed for the most serious conviction.

Section 2953.08(C)(1) applies only to consecutive sentences imposed under R.C. 2929.14(C)(3).

State v. Davis · filed 2016-10-17(C)(1)

However, R.C. 2953.08(C)(1) applies only where consecutive sentences are imposed under R.C. 2929.14(C)(3).

Section 2953.08(A)(2) requires a defendant to seek leave to appeal a prison sentence when the trial court makes the specified findings; without leave, the appellate court cannot review it.

State v. Chmura · filed 2024-07-11(A)(2)

We cannot address Chmura’s second assignment of error because he failed to seek leave pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(A)(2) and we are barred from reviewing it.

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

State v. Mitchell · filed 2017-07-20(G)(2)(a)

In addition, in an appeal involving consecutive sentences, such as the instant case, we are required under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence, and, to modify or vacate the sentence when we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). ... Given the facts of this case, we do not “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the trial court’s finding.

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

State v. Boros · filed 2017-08-31(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that a reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where the court “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Id. ... We find that the record in this case supports the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences if they are otherwise contrary to law or if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Waxler · filed 2017-09-08(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for a reviewing court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law,” or the reviewing court clearly and convincingly finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences 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. Lennon · filed 2017-05-11(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that a reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where the court “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Wilson · filed 2017-05-25(G)(2)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), an appellate court may “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). ... We cannot say that consecutive sentences are not supported by the record in this instance.

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

State v. Shabazz · filed 2017-05-25(G)(2)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), an appellate court may “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to affirm consecutive sentences once the required findings are made unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support them.

State v. Gross · filed 2017-05-25(G)(2)

We must affirm an order imposing consecutive service of the prison terms, once the findings are made, unless it can be clearly and convincingly found that the record does not support the sentencing judge’s findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences if they are contrary to law or if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Ruff · filed 2017-06-16(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for a reviewing court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law,” or the reviewing court clearly and convincingly finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits a reviewing court to overturn consecutive felony sentences 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. Blevins · filed 2017-06-22(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that when reviewing felony sentences, a reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where the court “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Romanko · filed 2017-03-02(G)(2)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), an appellate court may “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Nance · filed 2017-03-02(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that when reviewing felony sentences, a reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where the court “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” ... We cannot “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits review of consecutive sentences to whether the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings; it precludes reweighing sentencing factors to favor concurrent terms.

State v. Herring · filed 2017-03-02(G)(2)

The standard of appellate review over the imposition of consecutive sentences is whether this court can clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Our review is not to determine whether the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 weigh in favor of concurrent terms. The review Herring seeks is statutorily precluded and, therefore, overruled.

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

State v. Kidd · filed 2017-03-03(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is contrary to law.

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

State v. Davis · filed 2017-03-03(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(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. Allen · filed 2017-03-03(G)(2)(b)

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

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

State v. McCree · filed 2017-03-06(G)(2)

This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence, including one within an agreed sentencing range, when it is authorized by law and imposed by the sentencing judge.

State v. Webster · filed 2017-03-16(D)(1)

We find both of Webster’s assignments of error to be barred on appeal by R.C. 2953.08(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. ... If the state and defendant jointly recommend a sentencing range, the defendant implicitly agrees to all definite sentencing possibilities within that range.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Ward · filed 2017-03-16(G)(2)

As applicable in this appeal, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits us to overturn an order of consecutive service if we clearly and convincingly find that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Cochran · filed 2017-03-17(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is contrary to law.

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

State v. Williams · filed 2017-03-20(G)(2)

Accordingly, this court can only modify or vacate a sentence if the panel determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record does not support the trial court’s decision or if the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences 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. Burrell · filed 2017-03-23(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that when reviewing felony sentences, a reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where the court “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Hale · filed 2017-03-23(G)(2)

Accordingly, “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Thompkins · filed 2017-03-24(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Taeusch · filed 2017-03-27(G)(2)

Accordingly, this court can only modify or vacate a sentence if the panel determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record does not support the trial court’s decision or if the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Auxter · filed 2017-04-07(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Turner · filed 2017-04-10(G)(2)

“[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence” that: (1) “the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes,” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Parsons · filed 2017-04-10(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence “only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” ... For this reason, Parsons’s sentence is contrary to law. As such, we vacate the sentence and remand for proper sentencing.

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

State v. Sawyer · filed 2017-04-11(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a challenged felony sentence if the court clearly and convincingly finds either “that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under the specified statutory provisions, or “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Tribune · filed 2017-04-17(G)(2)

This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Julious, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-Ohio-4822, ¶ 8. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence only if, by clear and convincing evidence, that "the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Harp, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-12-096, 2016-Ohio-4921, ¶ 7.

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

State v. Sprott · filed 2017-04-24(G)(2)

“Applying the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), * * * an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Bell · filed 2017-04-24(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Holcomb · filed 2017-04-28(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2)’s standard for reviewing consecutive sentences also applies when those sentences are imposed after community control is revoked.

State v. Haddox · filed 2016-06-10(G)(2)

This same standard applies on review of the imposition of consecutive sentences following a community control revocation hearing.

Section 2953.08(C) allows an appeal of consecutive sentences that exceed the maximum sentence for the most serious offense, but the excess alone does not make the sentence unlawful.

State v. Graham · filed 2014-09-26(C)

Graham’s aggregate sentence was greater than 11 years, but the aggregate sentence was not contrary to R.C. 2953.08(C) merely because it exceeded the maximum sentence allowable for the first-degree felonies.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) applies a clear and convincing standard when an appellate court reviews whether the record supports consecutive-sentence findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Jennings · filed 2014-05-30(G)(2)

We do not “clearly and convincingly” find either that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Schwarzman · filed 2014-06-05(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that an appellate court “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if it “clearly and convincingly finds” that “the record does not support the court’s findings” made when ordering a defendant to serve consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences if they are contrary to law or if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Nia · filed 2014-06-12(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law”; or (2) the appellate court, upon its review, clearly and convincingly finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).