Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

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

State v. Batty · filed 2014-06-18(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 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. Lime · filed 2014-06-19(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the appellate court, on its review, clearly and convincingly finds that “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) directs an appellate court to review the record for support of the sentencing court’s findings and determine whether the felony sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Rose · filed 2014-06-26(G)(2)

The first step in our analysis is to determine the applicable legal standard, which in this instance is contained in R.C. 2953.08 “Appeals based on felony sentencing guidelines.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires: ... The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... This record supports the trial court’s conclusions. Appellant’s sentences are not otherwise contrary to law.

An agreement to impose a specified sentence if a defendant fails to appear for sentencing is not a jointly recommended sentence exempt from appellate review under § 2953.08(D)(1).

State v. Haywood · filed 2014-06-27(D)(1)

The agreement reached by the parties in this case was not the type of agreed sentence contemplated in R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). In this case, the parties had agreed that a specific sentence would be imposed as a consequence for Haywood’s failure to appear at sentencing. Rather than jointly recommending a sentence, the parties had agreed on the ramifications that would be imposed for Haywood’s malfeasance.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the appellate standard for reviewing consecutive felony sentences when the trial court must make statutory findings.

State v. Cornelison · filed 2014-06-30(G)(2)

Because a trial court is statutorily mandated to make findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before it can impose consecutive sentences, the findings are not within the court’s discretion. In this respect, post H.B. 86, it follows that the standard set forth under R.C. 2953.08 is a more appropriate standard for an appellate court’s review of consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Ervin · filed 2014-07-03(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may overturn the imposition of a consecutive sentence if (1) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law or (2) 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 alter or vacate a felony sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Graham · filed 2014-07-10(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) specifies that 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 overturn a consecutive sentence if it is contrary to law or the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Stowes · filed 2014-07-10(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may overturn the imposition of a consecutive sentence if (1) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law or (2) 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) permits an appellate 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. Wells · filed 2014-07-10(G)

Stated more plainly, the statute “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).” State v. Conner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99557, 2014-Ohio-601, ¶ 113.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law; abuse of discretion is not the standard.

State v. Blackley · filed 2014-07-17(G)(2)

In reviewing felony sentences such as the one imposed in this case, the appellate court’s standard “is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion”; rather, only if this court “clearly and convincingly” finds that “the sentence is * * * contrary to law,” does this court have the authority to “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or * * * vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to reverse 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. Matthews · filed 2014-07-17(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that when reviewing prison sentences, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” Instead, the statute permits the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences upon an offender if we “clearly and convincingly” find that, (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929(C)(4)]” or that, (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate 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 sentencing findings.

State v. Taylor · filed 2014-07-17(G)(2)

We review consecutive sentences using the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08. ... That statute 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).

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

State v. Paster · filed 2014-07-24(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two bases 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 modify or vacate a felony sentence if the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the sentencing court’s findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Wright · filed 2014-07-24(G)(2)

A reviewing 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 we determine that “the record clearly and convincingly * * * does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [various provisions]; [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 consecutive 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. Jude · filed 2014-08-08(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(C) does not bar consecutive sentences that exceed the maximum prison term for the defendant’s most serious offense.

State v. Drake, Unpublished Decision (12-28-1999) · filed 1999-12-28(C)

Nothing in R.C. 2953.08 (C), however, prevents the trial court from imposing consecutive sentences even if the consecutive sentences exceed the maximum prison term allowed by R.C. 2929.14 (A) for the most serious offense for which the defendant was convicted.

Section 2953.08(C) permits consecutive sentences even when their combined length exceeds the maximum prison term for the most serious offense of conviction.

State v. Harper, Unpublished Decision (12-21-2000) · filed 2000-12-21(C)

Nothing in R.C. 2953.08 (C) prevents the trial court from imposing consecutive sentences even if the consecutive sentences exceed the maximum prison term allowed by R.C. 2929.14 (A) for the most serious offense for which the defendant was convicted.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts reviewing a challenge to consecutive-sentence findings to determine whether the trial court clearly and convincingly acted contrary to law or the record.

State v. Walton, Unpublished Decision (4-24-2002) · filed 2002-04-24(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), an appellate court must determine if the trial court clearly and convincingly acted contrary to law or the record.

Section 2953.08(C) does not cap aggregate consecutive sentences at the maximum prison term for the most serious offense.

State v. Scott, Unpublished Decision (5-9-2002) · filed 2002-05-09(C)

However, we note that this court has repeatedly held that R.C. 2953.08 (C) does not prevent the trial court from imposing consecutive sentences in the aggregate even if the consecutive sentences exceed the maximum prison term allowed by R.C. 2929.14 (A) for the most serious offense for which the defendant was convicted.

Section 2953.08(C) does not permit an appeal of consecutive sentences that do not exceed the maximum prison term for the defendant’s most serious offense.

State v. Cricks, Unpublished Decision (9-23-2002) · filed 2002-09-23(C)

As the consecutive sentences did not exceed the maximum prison term allowed for the most serious offense of which appellant was convicted, the sentence in the instant case is not appealable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (C).

Section 2953.08(C) allows a defendant to seek leave to appeal consecutive felony sentences when they exceed the maximum prison term allowed for the most serious offense.

State v. Eaken, Unpublished Decision (12-10-2002) · filed 2002-12-10(C)

As the consecutive sentences did not exceed the maximum prison term allowed for the most serious offense of which appellant was convicted, the sentence in the instant case is not appealable pursuant to R.C. § 2953.08 (C).

Section 2953.08(D) permits appellate review of consecutive sentences when one or more offenses is aggravated murder because the consecutive-sentence order is imposed under section 2929.14(E).

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

Thus, we hold that R.C. 2953.08 (D) does not preclude our review of the imposition of consecutive sentences when one or more of the offenses is aggravated murder.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to review the record to determine whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed.

State v. Wallace, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2004) · filed 2004-03-29(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) instructs the appellate court to review the "record" to determine whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed in a given case.

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

State v. Heard, Unpublished Decision (9-21-2005) · filed 2005-09-21(D)

Appellant agreed to the life sentence imposed by the trial court. R.C. 2953.08 (D) provides that "[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge." ... As noted above, Appellant's agreement to this sentence alleviates the necessity of the trial court to comply with R.C. 2929.19 .

Section 2953.08(G)(1)(a) permits an appellate court to remand or modify a sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court's consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Stayer, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2005) · filed 2005-09-26(G)(1)(a)

On an appeal from the imposition of sentence, an appellate court may remand the case, or increase, reduce, or otherwise modify the sentence, if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4). R.C. 2953.08 (G)(1)(a). Therefore, we must agree with Stayer that the trial court erred in the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(C) permits appellate review of a challenge that consecutive sentences are contrary to law even when the defendant did not seek leave to appeal.

State v. Herring, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2005) · filed 2005-10-31(C)

However, we subsequently held in State v. Willis, Delaware App. No. 02CA-A-07-037, 2003-Ohio-2036, that even where the defendant did not seek leave to appeal as required by R.C. 2953.08 (C) and App.R. 5(D), we would address the legality of the consecutive sentences because defendant asserted on appeal that his consecutive sentences were contrary to law. {¶ 16} In the case sub judice, appellant characterizes his challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences as contrary to law. Thus, pursuant to our decision in Willis, we have jurisdiction to address the merits of appellant's appeal.

Section 2953.08(G)(1)(a) directs an appellate court to review the record when deciding whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed.

State v. Fortune, Unpublished Decision (10-11-2005) · filed 2005-10-11(G)(1)(a)

R.C. 2953.08 (G) (l) (a) instructs the appellate court to review the "record" to determine whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed in a given case.

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

State v. Dunn, Unpublished Decision (10-14-2005) · filed 2005-10-14(D)

We agree with Defendant's appellate counsel that the three year sentence jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial court is not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(G) authorizes an appellate court to vacate a consecutive sentence and remand for resentencing when it clearly and convincingly finds that required findings were missing or the sentence was contrary to law.

State v. Bair, Unpublished Decision (10-21-2005) · filed 2005-10-21(G)

R.C. 2953.08 (G) authorizes an appellate court to vacate a sentence and remand the case for resentencing if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentencing court failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) in order to impose consecutive sentences, and/or that the sentence was imposed `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 contrary to law.

State v. Messer, Unpublished Decision (11-3-2005) · filed 2005-11-03(G)(2)

We cannot find clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence 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 clear and convincing evidence shows that the sentencing findings lack record support or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Fimognari, Unpublished Decision (11-4-2005) · filed 2005-11-04(G)(2)

In reviewing appeals from such sentences, the appellate court may increase, reduce or otherwise modify the sentence or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing where it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.13 (B) or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G) requires a clear and convincing showing of a specified sentencing error before an appellate court will disturb a felony sentence.

State v. Kyle, Unpublished Decision (11-7-2005) · filed 2005-11-07(G)

Thus, a sentence imposed by the trial court will not be disturbed absent a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court committed one of the errors described by R.C. 2953.08 (G): the sentence is unsupported by the record; the procedure of the sentencing statutes was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify 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. Mansfield, Unpublished Decision (11-7-2005) · filed 2005-11-07(G)(2)

An appellate court may modify a trial court's sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds either (1) that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings or (2) that the sentence is contrary to the law.

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

State v. Pitts, Unpublished Decision (11-7-2005) · filed 2005-11-07(G)(2)

An appellate court may not modify a trial court's sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings or the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. § 2953.08 (G)(2); State v. Jackson, 3 rd Dist. No. 1-04-52, 2005-Ohio-1083, at ¶ 30.

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

State v. Caudill, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2005) · filed 2005-11-14(G)(2)

An appellate court may not modify a trial court's sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Howard, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2005) · filed 2005-11-14(G)(2)

In reviewing a felony sentence, an appellate court may not modify or vacate and remand a sentence unless it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings or is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence if clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under § 2929.14(E)(4).

State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (11-21-2005) · filed 2005-11-21(G)(2)

In reviewing a felony sentence, 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 finds by clear and convincing evidence "[t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under * * * division E(4) of section 2929.14." R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2).

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

State v. Lowe, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2005) · filed 2005-12-15(G)(2)

On appeal, this court may only vacate, increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing upon clear and convincing evidence that the sentencing findings lack record support or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Barger, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2005) · filed 2005-12-16(G)(2)

We begin by noting that an appellate court reviewing a sentence imposed by the trial court may "vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing" only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that "the record does not support the sentencing court's findings" or "that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(a) (b). We conclude that the record in this case does not support the trial court's findings and that it is thus, contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of a consecutive sentence when an appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the required findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Cottrell, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2005) · filed 2005-12-23(G)(2)

For the foregoing reasons, this assignment of error is overruled as we cannot clearly and convincingly find that imposition of consecutive sentences is unsupported by the record or otherwise contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(a) and (b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs an appellate court to review the record when deciding whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed.

State v. Hill, Unpublished Decision (4-10-2006) · filed 2006-02-23(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) instructs the appellate court to review the "record" to determine whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed in a given case.

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

State v. Massie, Unpublished Decision (4-19-2006) · filed 2006-04-19(C)

We similarly 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 right to appeal qualifying consecutive sentences does not limit their total length to the maximum term for the most serious offense.

State v. Hare, Unpublished Decision (7-27-2006) · filed 2006-07-27(C)

We first note that in the era following the enactment of S.B. 2, but prior to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , 2006-Ohio-856 , we 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) permits an appeal of qualifying consecutive sentences but does not limit their combined length to the maximum term for the most serious conviction.

State v. Owens · filed 2012-06-27(C)

However, 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(G) permits an appellate court to sustain a challenge to consecutive sentences only if the appellant shows the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Fauntleroy · filed 2012-10-24(G)

An appellate court may only sustain an assignment of error challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14 if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) allows an appellate court to sustain a challenge to consecutive sentences only if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Bonnell · filed 2012-11-05(G)

An appellate court may only sustain an assignment of error challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14 if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to sustain a challenge to consecutive sentences only if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Pruitt · filed 2012-11-21(G)

An appellate court may only sustain an assignment of error challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14 if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellant challenging consecutive sentences to show clearly and convincingly that the judgment is contrary to law.

State v. Johnson · filed 2012-11-29(G)

An appellate court may only sustain an assignment of error challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14 if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits a reviewing court to vacate consecutive sentences only 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. Rose · filed 2012-12-03(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), a reviewing court may vacate consecutive sentences only if it "clearly and convincingly finds" either that the record does not support the trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(C)(1) allows a defendant to seek leave to appeal certain consecutive sentences; it does not limit a sentencing court’s discretion to impose them.

State v. Davis · filed 2012-12-07(C)(1)

Instead we follow the great weight of authority in Ohio and hold that R.C. 2953.08(C)(1) does not limit a sentencing court’s discretion to impose consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to sustain a challenge to consecutive sentences only if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Galindo-Barjas · filed 2013-02-05(G)

An appellate court may only sustain an assignment of error challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14 if the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G). This record does not support such a showing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts to review consecutive sentences under a clear-and-convincing standard and permits them to modify or vacate a sentence that lacks support for the required findings or is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Smith · filed 2013-02-21(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides that appellate review of consecutive sentences does not use an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Battle · filed 2013-03-07(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(C) permits an appeal of qualifying consecutive sentences but does not cap their combined length at the maximum sentence for the most serious conviction.

State v. Queer · filed 2013-08-19(C)

However, 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(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. Harris · filed 2014-04-03(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two bases 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) permits a reviewing court to vacate consecutive sentences only 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. Simmons · filed 2014-08-27(G)

Instead, this court employs the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G), which provides that a reviewing court may vacate consecutive sentences only if “it clearly and convincingly finds” that (1) the record does not support the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) sentencing findings or (2) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Groves · filed 2014-09-26(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 reversal of consecutive sentences when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Bartlett · filed 2014-10-02(G)(2)

As an appellate court, we cannot reverse a trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences as being an abuse of discretion; we can only reverse consecutive sentences if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Dixson · filed 2014-10-14(G)(2)(a)

On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court “to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence” and to modify or vacate the sentence “if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.” ... A review of the record reveals that the findings are supported by the evidence. Therefore, the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences.

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 the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Carrington · filed 2014-10-16(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08, an appellate court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where (1) 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), or (2) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Price · filed 2014-10-23(G)

When the trial court makes the required findings, an appellate court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences only if it finds, clearly and convincingly, that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings, or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G); State v. Adams, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-783, 2014-Ohio-1809, ¶ 7.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Christian · filed 2014-11-03(G)(2)

Regarding consecutive sentences, however, this court has determined that it must “clearly and convincingly find either * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings * * * [or] [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Wilcox · filed 2014-11-07(G)(2)(a)

“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.’ ” Bonnell at ¶ 28. ... However we are unable to find that the trial court was clearly and convincingly wrong in its findings for imposing consecutive sentences, which is our standard of review.

Section 2953.08 provides the appellate review standard for consecutive sentences; the court concluded that applying it yields the same analysis as the standard it uses for general felony sentences.

State v. Moore · filed 2014-11-24

This court has also observed, however, that “[b]ecause a trial court is statutorily mandated to make findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before it can impose consecutive sentences, the findings are not within the court’s discretion. In this respect, post H.B. 86, it follows that the standard set forth under R.C. 2953.08 is a more appropriate standard for an appellate court’s review of consecutive sentences.” ... In practice, however, there is no real distinction between the two standards. The point of retaining Kalish for reviewing general felony sentences is merely to underscore the trial court has discretion to enter sentence within a respective felony range. Accordingly, the analysis employed under either standard will inevitably be the same.

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

State v. Carson · filed 2015-10-08(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) makes it clear that if the court has properly made the required findings in order to impose consecutive sentences, we must affirm those sentences unless we “clearly and convincingly” find “[t]hat the record does not support the court’s findings[.]”

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

State v. Jackson · filed 2015-10-15(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two bases 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)(a) directs an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to examine the record and modify or vacate the sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Beverly · filed 2015-11-13(G)(2)(a)

“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.’” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28. ... The record supports the trial court’s conclusions that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future offenses by Beverly and to punish Beverly for the attempted aggravated robbery and the escape.

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. Starcher · filed 2015-12-14(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).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to examine the entire record for legal error and whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the required findings.

State v. Quinn · filed 2016-01-15(G)(2)

Our review of a consecutive-sentence issue is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which requires an appellate court to review the entire record to determine if the sentence is contrary to law, and to evaluate whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the statutory findings required to impose consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts to review whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Anderson · filed 2016-01-15(G)(2)

Upon review, we do not believe the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s findings.

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

State v. Brandon · filed 2016-01-22(G)(2)(a)

When a defendant challenges a trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.’ ” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ... We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record in this case does not support the sentencing court’s consecutive-sentence findings.

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

State v. Tea · filed 2016-02-26(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate the sentence and remand that matter to the sentencing court for resentencing, if we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Jury · filed 2016-04-22(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing, if we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... Thus, appellant’s consecutive sentence was neither excessive nor contrary to law.

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

State v. Perry · filed 2016-06-30(G)(2)(a)

In imposing consecutive sentences for felonious assault and having weapons while under disability, the record reflects that the court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Having reviewed the record, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that it does not support those findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits 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 otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Primm · filed 2016-08-04(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that when reviewing felony sentences, the appellate court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where the reviewing 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.” ... Further, we cannot “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the court’s findings.

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

State v. Tate · filed 2016-09-01(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may modify or vacate a sentence if we find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support any relevant findings required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

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

This Court’s review of consecutive sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), which requires us to “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court” and authorizes us to vacate and remand for resentencing if we “clearly and convincingly find * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * *” or conclude that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires an appellate court to affirm consecutive felony sentences unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s required findings.

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

The imposition of consecutive prison terms for multiple felony offenses is governed by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), one of the five statutory provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Accordingly, imposition of consecutive terms will be affirmed unless this court clearly and convincingly finds that the record fails to support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate 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 contrary to law.

State v. Hauser · filed 2016-11-10(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) permits appellate review of consecutive-sentence findings when the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support them.

State v. Ladson · filed 2016-11-17(G)

The trial court must make the findings, and we can only exercise our authority under R.C. 2953.08(G) if we can clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.

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. Taylor · filed 2016-11-23(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.” ... We cannot “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the court’s findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reverse consecutive sentences merely because it disagrees with the weight the trial court gave debatable evidence.

State v. Jones · filed 2016-12-15(G)(2)

Appellate courts could very well disagree with the sentence imposed; however, disagreement over debatable issues, such as the weight or importance of any one factor or finding, is not grounds to reverse the consecutively imposed sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Brewer · filed 2017-01-13(G)(2)(a)

“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)].’ ” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28. ... Because the record is devoid of any information regarding Brewer’s criminal history, we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that Brewer had a history of criminal conduct which demonstrated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime by him.

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

State v. Hart · filed 2017-01-26(G)

We may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences if we clearly and convincingly find either that the record does not support the trial court’s findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G).

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

State v. Pendergrass · filed 2017-05-11(G)(2)(a)

An appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence on appeal if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102449, 2016-Ohio-1536, ¶ 9. ... Under these circumstances, we cannot find that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the sentencing court’s consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits reversal of consecutive-sentence findings when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support them.

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

In reviewing consecutive sentencing findings, this court does not examine whether clear and convincing evidence supports the findings. Instead, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) this court may reverse consecutive sentencing findings only when it “clearly and convincingly” finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(emphasis added).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows a reviewing 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. Davis · filed 2017-09-21(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) 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. Allison · filed 2017-09-21(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) requires an appellate court to affirm consecutive sentences when the required findings were made unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support them.

State v. Bridges · filed 2017-11-16(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) makes it clear that if the court has made the requisite statutory findings to impose consecutive sentences, we must affirm those sentences unless we “clearly and convincingly” find “[t]hat the record does not support the court's findings[.]”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to determine whether clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Kitts · filed 2018-01-29(G)(2)(a)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we are mandated in this instance to consider on appeal whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the record in the case sub judice does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts to review the record when reviewing consecutive sentences; abuse of discretion is not the standard.

State v. West · filed 2018-03-15(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion. Instead, an appellate court must “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.”

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. Rucker · filed 2018-05-10(G)(2)(a)-(b)

Under R.C. 2953.08, an appellate court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where “upon its review, [it] clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Lunder, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101223, 2014-Ohio-5341, ¶ 10, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)-(b). ... We cannot say that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

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

State v. McKnight · filed 2018-05-15(G)(2)

Once the trial court makes the factual findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), an appellate court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences only if it finds, clearly and convincingly, the record does not support the sentencing court's findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn a consecutive sentence 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. Ross · filed 2018-06-14(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.” ... Therefore, we find that all appropriate findings were made on the record and that the consecutive sentence is not contrary to the law.

Section 2953.08 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. Freeman · filed 2018-06-14(G)(2)(a)-(b)

Under R.C. 2953.08, an appellate court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where upon its review, it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts reviewing consecutive sentences to examine the record rather than use an abuse-of-discretion standard.

State v. Jenkins · filed 2018-06-21(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion.

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

State v. Skapik · filed 2018-07-06(G)(2)

Appellate review of a consecutive sentence is also governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Id. Therefore, an appellate court may modify or vacate a consecutive sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings or that the consecutive sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing when omitted consecutive-sentence findings make the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Snyder · filed 2018-07-16(G)(2)

“The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing * * * if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or * * * [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b). ... Since the record demonstrates that the requisite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were not made, as the State concedes, Snyder’s sentence is contrary to law and constituted plain error. We therefore vacate his sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs an appellate court to review whether clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings for consecutive sentences.

State v. Compton · filed 2018-07-19(G)(2)(a)

Thus, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we will in this instance consider on appeal whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the record in the case sub judice does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences. ... Upon review, we hold the trial court adequately reviewed the matter of consecutive sentences, and we find no clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for purposes of imposing consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires an appellate court to affirm consecutive felony sentences unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s required findings.

State v. Parker · filed 2018-08-13(G)(2)(a)

The imposition of consecutive prison terms for multiple felony offenses is governed by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), one of the five statutory provisions referenced in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). As a result, the imposition of consecutive terms will be affirmed on appeal unless this court clearly and convincingly finds that the record fails to support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs appellate review of consecutive-sentence findings under a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.

State v. Mathew · filed 2018-08-23(G)(2)(a)

Thus, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we will in this instance consider on appeal whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the record in the case sub judice does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences only 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. Johnson · filed 2018-09-13(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), a reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences only if it clearly and convincingly finds that either (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) governs appellate review of consecutive felony sentences; the court does not review them for abuse of discretion.

State v. Hernandez · filed 2018-09-13(G)(2)

In reviewing felony sentences, this court does not review the imposition of consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of sentences imposed for aggravated murder or murder under R.C. 2929.02 to 2929.06.

State v. Crosby · filed 2018-09-20(D)(3)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) precludes appellate review of sentences imposed for aggravated murder or murder under sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 of the Revised Code.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to review the record when evaluating consecutive sentences and permits relief if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the required findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Gray · filed 2018-11-01(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion. Instead, an appellate court must “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence . . .” Id. 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.” Id.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires appellate review of whether clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the findings used to impose consecutive sentences.

State v. Pine · filed 2018-12-06(G)(2)(a)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we consider whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Muldrew · filed 2018-12-07(G)(2)(a)

When a defendant challenges a consecutive sentence, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.’ ” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

State v. Talley · filed 2018-12-17(G)(2)

The Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, held that appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) when reviewing felony sentences. ... Thus, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or that the court did not consider the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s proportionality finding.

State v. Glover · filed 2023-04-07(G)(2)

Because we found that the record clearly and convincingly did not support the trial court’s proportionality finding, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits us to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(1) directs an appellate court to remand when the sentencing court fails to make required consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Dranse · filed 2023-05-04(G)(1)

“Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(1), if the trial court does not make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14, the appellate court is directed to ‘remand the case to the sentencing court to state, on the record, the required findings.’” Id. at ¶ 6.

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

State v. Hayes · filed 2024-03-07(G)(2)

Having found that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the lower court’s findings in support of the consecutive sentences imposed in this case, we modify Hayes’s sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not treat a sentence as contrary to law when the trial court made the required consecutive-sentence findings at the hearing but inadvertently omitted them from the judgment entry.

State v. Pitts · filed 2026-02-24(G)(2)

When a trial court makes the appropriate findings at the sentencing hearing but inadvertently fails to incorporate those findings into the judgment entry, the sentence is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(C)’s right to appeal a sentence does not limit consecutive sentences to the maximum term for the most serious conviction.

State v. Oester · filed 2013-06-24(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(A)(4) allows an appeal as of right when a sentence is subject to a provision that could later increase the prison term and has been declared facially unconstitutional.

State v. Morris, Unpublished Decision (8-18-2000) · filed 2000-08-18(A)(4)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(1)(d), this court has authority to modify any sentence that is contrary to law. If, as part of the sentence, the APA can subsequently increase the sentence, as Morris was informed by the trial court at the time of his sentencing, then under R.C. 2953.08 (A)(4) his appeal as of right is ripe. His sentence is contrary to law because it is subject to a statute that has been declared facially unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Section 2953.08 does not authorize an appeal of a possible future prison term when the defendant was sentenced to community control and has not received a prison term.

State v. Ellis, Unpublished Decision (4-29-2003) · filed 2003-04-29(A)(1), (A)(2)

Apparently, Ellis is appealing this part of her sentence under R.C. 2953.08 (A)(1) (2), which allows a defendant to appeal a maximum prison term sentence or a sentence that included a prison term when the offense is a fifth degree felony. Here, Ellis received a sentence of community control for the theft, a fifth degree felony. Ellis did not receive a sentence that included a prison term. If Ellis violates her community control, then the court may or may not in the future impose the maximum sentence. Thus, Ellis does not have authority under R.C. 2953.08 to appeal this part of her sentence because the issues or claims she raises are not yet justiciable.

Section 2953.08 does not permit a felony sentencing appeal based on a claim that the trial court abused its discretion.

State v. Parks, Unpublished Decision (12-2-2005) · filed 2005-12-02(A), (G)

Regarding sentencing, "this court has already held that an abuse of discretion claim is not a proper ground for appeal, or a matter for which the statute permits appellate review." State v. Johnson, Montgomery App. No. 20597, 2005-Ohio-2866 (citing R.C. 2953.08 (A), (G) and State v. Lofton, Montgomery App. No. 19852, 2004-Ohio-169 .) Accordingly, Mr. Park's second assignment of error is overruled, and the sentence imposed by the trial court is affirmed.

Section 2953.08(A) allows a defendant to appeal a sentence claimed to be contrary to law despite a waiver of appellate rights.

State v. Girts · filed 2014-12-18(A)

Girts’ argument, whether ultimately successful or not, is premised on his claim that his sentence is contrary to law. As such, it cannot be waived.

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to remand for correction of a sentencing entry that includes appointed-counsel fees as costs, but its review of the sentence does not extend to the fee assessment itself.

Ohio v. Connin · filed 2021-12-17

To the extent appellant urges this court to modify or vacate the portion of his sentence imposing appointed-counsel fees as part of “costs,” where such fees are not “costs,” are not deemed a part of his sentence under Taylor, and “contrary to law,” we have the authority to remand the matter for correction to the entry. However, our review of the sentence under R.C. 2953.08 does not extend to the specific relief appellant requests regarding the appointed-counsel fees, addressing these fees as part of the costs assessed.

Section 2953.08(B) does not permit the state to appeal a modification of a sentence for a fourth degree felony.

State v. Grodi, Unpublished Decision (9-1-2000) · filed 2000-09-01(B)(3)

Since appellant is attempting to appeal from a modification of a sentence for a fourth degree felony, the appeal must be dismissed. See R.C. 2953.08 (B).

Section 2953.08(B)(2) does not give the state an appeal as of right from a modification of a felony sentence.

State v. Raitz, Unpublished Decision (10-24-2003) · filed 2003-10-24(B)(2)

We therefore hold that R.C. 2953.08 (B)(2) does not give appellant an appeal as of right, and the appeal is dismissed.

Section 2953.08(B)(3) allows the State to appeal a sentence modification as a matter of right only when it is a judicial-release modification under section 2929.20 of a sentence for a first- or second-degree felony.

State v. Crawford, 07 Ca 8 (7-5-2007) · filed 2007-07-05(B)(3)

Finally, R.C. 2953.08 (B)(3), while at least authorizing the State to appeal some sentence modifications, is limited to appeals where the challenge is to "a modification under section 2929.20 of the Revised Code of a sentence that was imposed for a felony of the first or second degree."

Section 2953.08(B)(3) allows the state to appeal a sentence modification as of right only for a first or second degree felony.

State v. Malone · filed 2024-11-25(B)(3)

Subsection (3) is the only subsection that specifically applies to modifications. In this case, subsection (3) does not apply because appellee Malone was convicted of a fourth degree felony, not a first or second degree felony.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a sentence containing an allied-offenses error and remand for resentencing because that sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Sines-Riley · filed 2024-07-24(G)(2)

The sentences on those two counts are vacated (Counts 1 and 2 in Case No. 21CR342) and we remand for a new sentencing hearing. The foregoing remedy comports with the requirements of R.C. 2941.25, as well as the felony-sentencing statutes. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may vacate a sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing if the sentence is contrary to law. A sentence that contains an allied- offenses error is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a sentence to correct an improper period of mandatory postrelease control.

State v. Mason · filed 2017-08-03(G)(2)

We therefore modify and correct Mason’s term of mandatory postrelease control from three years to five years under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) authorizes a reviewing court to modify a felony sentence or vacate it and remand for resentencing.

State v. Martin · filed 2017-05-11(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) gives us the authority to modify or vacate and remand.

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

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

Based upon the pertinent sentencing statutes and the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements clarifying how they relate, the trial court’s imposition of a five-year sentence for a third-degree felony OVI conviction was clearly and convincingly contrary to law as it exceeds the available maximum sentence (for a case with no specification under R.C. 2941.1413). Consequently, Appellant’s five-year sentence must be reversed. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) (appellate review standard where the court clearly and convincingly finds the sentence is contrary to law). We hereby exercise our authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to modify and reduce Appellant’s sentence to the statutory maximum.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence it finds contrary to law, including by removing an impermissible no-contact order.

State v. Vidal · filed 2016-12-12(G)(2)(b)

“The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing * * * if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or * * * [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b). ... Thus, we affirm Vidal’s prison sentence but modify the court’s September 22, 2015 Order and Journal Entry to eliminate the no-contact portion of the sentence.

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

State v. Young · filed 2016-07-18(G)(2)(b)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), when a sentence is contrary to law, a reviewing court, inter alia, “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 a sentence by vacating an improperly imposed mandatory term of postrelease control.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2016-07-14(G)(2)

Here, consistent with Hunter and Fischer, we choose to do the same and modify the sentence in accordance with R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), vacating the trial court’s order imposing a mandatory three years of postrelease control and leaving that determination to the discretion of the Adult Parole Authority.

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

Cleveland v. Aeon Fin., L.L.C. · filed 2016-06-23(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b), this court, upon finding that a sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, “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)(b) permits an appellate court to modify a sentence it clearly and convincingly finds contrary to law.

State v. Adams · filed 2016-05-23(G)(2)(b)

Therefore, appellant’s sentence of 180 days on a fourth-degree misdemeanor was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a sentence to include a mandatory term the trial court had no discretion to alter.

State v. Green · filed 2016-03-10(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits the appellate court to modify the sentence to include that which the court had no discretion to alter.

Section 2953.08 does not permit a felony sentence to be vacated when it is supported by clear and convincing evidence and is not contrary to law.

State v. Peters, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2000) · filed 2000-11-15

Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court's sentence was not supported by clear and convincing evidence or that it was contrary to law. ... Consequently, the sentence is not voidable under any of the provisions of R.C. 2953.08 .

Section 2953.08(G)(1) permits an appellate court to modify a sentence or remand for resentencing when the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Montgomery, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2000) · filed 2000-09-26(G)(1)

We agree that, under the pertinent provisions of R.C. 2953.08 (G)(1), we "may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section" when we find that the sentence is contrary to law. However, R.C. 2953.08 (G)(1) also gives us authority to remand a case for resentencing when the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify an appealed felony sentence.

State v. McDougald, Unpublished Decision (10-20-2000) · filed 2000-10-20(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), we may "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed." Relying on this statute, we will modify McDougald's sentence on the attempt conviction from three years to the minimum amount of prison time for a second degree felony, i.e., two years.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence and remand for modification.

State v. Walk, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2000) · filed 2000-12-29(G)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G), we vacate the sentence imposed and remand the matter to said court so that it may modify appellant's sentence to minimum terms for each count to run concurrently.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence that is contrary to law.

State v. Eberle, Unpublished Decision (2-20-2001) · filed 2001-02-20(G)(2)

An appellate court may vacate and remand for resentencing, increase, reduce or otherwise modify a felony sentence that is not supported by the record or is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2). ... Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), this court hereby modifies the trial court's judgment entry to reflect that appellant will be subject to three years of mandatory post-release control upon completion of his term of imprisonment.

Section 2953.08(G)(1) requires remand when a trial court fails to make required R.C. 2929.13(B) sentencing findings.

State v. Mounts, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2001) · filed 2001-03-09(G)(1)

Because the trial court failed to make any findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.13 (B), R.C. 2953.08 (G)(1) requires that we remand the case to the trial court.