Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence to include notice that violating postrelease control may lead to further incarceration.

State v. Rice · filed 2011-04-21(G)(2)

Accordingly, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we correct Rice’s sentence to include that he could be subject to further incarceration if he violates the terms and conditions of his postrelease control.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) authorizes an appellate court to correct a sentence that improperly imposes mandatory post-release control by modifying it without a remand.

State v. Pointer · filed 2011-09-30(G)(2)

When the applicable terms of post-release control are mandatory, as they are here, an appellate court is authorized by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to correct the defect in imposing post-release control by modifying the sentence without a remand.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a sentence to correct an improper postrelease-control term.

State v. Falkenstein · filed 2011-10-06(G)(2)

Accordingly, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we modify and correct Falkenstein’s postrelease control from “the maximum period allowed *** under R.C. 2967.28” to “a mandatory term of five years postrelease control.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify a sentence to correct a post-release-control error without ordering a new sentencing hearing.

State v. Davis · filed 2011-11-18(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) also 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.’ ... Pursuant to Fischer, we hereby modify and correct Appellant’s post-release control to apprise him of post-release control, and we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to correct the sentencing entry to reflect this advisement.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a sentence to correct a mandatory post-release-control error without ordering a new sentencing hearing.

State v. Butler · filed 2011-12-07(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) also 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.’ ... Appellant desires the remedy of a new sentencing hearing, but that remedy is not appropriate in this case. Pursuant to Fischer, we hereby modify and correct Appellant’s post-release control to apprise him of post-release control, and we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to correct the sentencing entry to reflect this advisement.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify an erroneous postrelease control term and remand for correction of the sentencing entry.

State v. May · filed 2011-12-22(G)(2)

Accordingly, we sustain this assignment of error, and pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we modify defendant’s postrelease control term to reflect “a mandatory term of five years postrelease control” and remand with instructions to correct the sentencing journal entry.

Subsection (G)(2) permits an appellate court to correct a postrelease-control sentence and remand for correction of the sentencing entry.

State v. Thompson · filed 2011-04-14(G)(2)

Consequently, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we modify and correct Thompson’s postrelease control to apprise him of the penalty for violating same and remand to the trial court with instructions to correct the sentencing ... entry to reflect this advisement.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify a felony sentence on direct appeal to correct an error in imposing postrelease control.

State v. Flanagan · filed 2012-03-28(G)(2)

Therefore, we hold the trial court did err in sentencing appellant and this court may correct the defect upon direct appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a sentence that is contrary to law and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

State v. Wilson · filed 2011-06-08(G)(2)

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.

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

State v. Armstrong · filed 2011-12-09(G)(2)

Because the sentence that the trial court imposed for the kidnapping was contrary to law, we modify the sentence for kidnapping to an indefinite term of 15 years to life. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G) requires an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Burns · filed 2012-02-09(G)

Thus, in the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence that exceeds the statutory range.

State v. Andrew · filed 2012-04-20(G)(2)

Thus we must vacate the sentence imposed for obstructing official business. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

An appellate court may remand for resentencing rather than modify a sentence under § 2953.08(G)(2) when allied-offense merger requires corrections better handled by the trial court.

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

It requests that pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), this court modify Kelley’s sentence to reflect the correct sentence, rather than remand for resentencing just so the state can elect which allied offense it will pursue for purposes of sentencing and conviction. ... We reject the state’s request due to the many nuances the trial court must remove from Kelley’s sentence if the state elects, as it says it will, for Kelley to be sentenced on aggravated vehicular homicide, rather than R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). The trial court is in a better position than this court to issue the correct journal entry.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify consecutive prison terms to concurrent terms when the record does not support consecutive sentences.

State v. Lebron · filed 2012-09-13(G)(2)

We further find that the record does not clearly and convincingly support consecutive sentences. Accordingly, as we are permitted to do under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) (and because the trial court said at the sentencing hearing that it “stated all the reasons I have”), we modify Lebron’s sentence from consecutive prison terms to concurrent prison terms, for an aggregate sentence of 14 months in prison.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts to review consecutive sentences under a standard other than abuse of discretion.

State v. Blackburn · filed 2012-10-04(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) governs appellate review of whether a trial court complied with the requirements for imposing consecutive sentences.

State v. Valdez · filed 2012-12-07(G)(2)

Our determination of whether the trial court complied with the mandates of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in imposing consecutive sentences is subject to review under the first prong of the Kalish test and under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate review of the record and permits modification or remand if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required consecutive-sentence findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Goins · filed 2013-01-31(G)(2)

Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not an abuse of discretion. An appellate court must “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.” 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) permits an appellate court to sustain a challenge to consecutive sentences when the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Patterson · filed 2012-11-30(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) requires clear-and-convincing review of whether the record supports the required findings for consecutive sentences or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Drobny · filed 2013-03-14(G)

We recognize that the revived statutory findings require the application of R.C. 2953.08(G) and the clear and convincing standard to determine whether requisite statutory findings are supported by the record or whether the sentence is contrary to law in the context of consecutive sentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to examine the record for support for the sentencing court’s findings and determine whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Jarrett · filed 2013-04-25(G)(2)

When reviewing consecutive sentences imposed under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), we “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court” to determine whether (1) the record does not support the court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law[.]” See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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. Venes · filed 2013-05-09(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 an appellate court to sustain a challenge to consecutive sentences only when the appellant shows that the judgment was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Clark · filed 2013-06-20(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)(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. Stowes · filed 2013-07-11(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) 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. Bryant · filed 2013-07-25(G)(2)

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 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. Cooperwood · filed 2013-08-08(G)(2)

In Venes, we held that we review consecutive sentences using the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08. Id. at ¶ 8-10. 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) requires an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to affirm unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Doubrava · filed 2013-08-15(G)(2)

Appellant misconstrues the clear and convincing standard used by R.C. 2953.08(G). We recently stated in State v. Venes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98682, 2013-Ohio-1891, ¶ 19, that if the trial 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 when they are contrary to law or when the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the required findings.

State v. Hammond · filed 2013-08-29(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 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. Wells · filed 2013-09-05(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) allows 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 sentencing findings.

State v. Gibson · filed 2013-10-03(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) permits reversal of consecutive sentences when they are contrary to law or when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

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

Thus, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the following two grounds permit an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences upon an offender: (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.”

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 sentencing findings.

State v. Cowan · filed 2013-10-10(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) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences that are contrary to law or whose required findings clearly and convincingly lack support in the record.

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

Regarding this claim, we review it 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) when the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law”; or (2) when the appellate 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) allows an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences that are contrary to law or whose required findings lack clear and convincing support in the record.

State v. McGee · filed 2013-11-07(G)(2)

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 a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences if they are contrary to law or if the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the required findings.

State v. Carman · filed 2013-11-07(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 reverse consecutive sentences that are contrary to law or whose required findings lack support in the record.

State v. Gill · filed 2013-11-14(G)(2)

Thus, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the following two grounds permit an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences upon an offender: (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.”

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

State v. Hodges · filed 2013-11-14(G)(2)

{¶21} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the following two grounds permit an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences upon an offender if: (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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to overturn consecutive sentences when the record does not support the required findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Kinder · filed 2013-11-27(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, 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)(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. Young · filed 2013-12-12(G)(2)

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 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 2013-12-12(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).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate an unlawful portion of a felony sentence while affirming the rest.

State v. Hurst · filed 2012-12-20(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides, ... "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. ... "(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." ... Based upon the above, we find only that portion of Appellant's sentence classifying him a sexually oriented offender is void. As a result, this Court vacates the illegal portion of Appellant's sentence. Appellant's sentencing entry is affirmed in all other respects, excepting his classification as a sexually oriented offender, which is hereby vacated.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) authorizes an appellate court to modify a felony sentence by ordering prison terms to run concurrently.

State v. Nichols · filed 2013-07-26(G)(2)(b)

On the authority contained in Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. § 2953.08(G)(2)(b), Nichols’ prison sentence is modified to a sentence of three years on each of the four counts of gross sexual imposition to run concurrently to one another for an aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing when the trial court omits required consecutive-sentence findings; it does not require the appellate court to impose concurrent sentences.

State v. Locke · filed 2015-08-20(G)(2)

See R.C. 2953.08(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.”) ... But we do not interpret the above paragraph to mean that the appellate court is required to modify an appellant’s sentence if the trial court did not make the requisite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. ... Therefore, we vacate Locke’s consecutive sentences and remand this matter to the trial court for a limited resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence or vacate it and remand for resentencing.

State v. Curtis · filed 2015-08-24(G)

R.C. 2953.08(G) 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."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to remand for resentencing rather than modify a sentence to concurrent terms when the trial court omits required consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Stephens · filed 2015-09-03(G)(2)

Although, we acknowledge that there must be some limit to how many times a trial court should have a case remanded for resentencing to correct the same error, we think the record in this case requires us to remand to the trial court instead of modifying Stephens’s sentence to concurrent prison terms.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) authorizes an appellate court to modify a felony sentence based on sentencing factors in the record when the trial court fails to follow a resentencing mandate.

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

Since the trial court failed to follow our mandate, we will exercise our authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to modify Morefield’s sentence, based on the sentencing factors that were the subject of discussion by counsel at the re-sentencing hearing.

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing.

State v. Dansby-East · filed 2016-01-21

However, under R.C. 2953.08, the appellate court may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(1) requires a remand instruction to state the required repeat-violent-offender findings, but the instruction need not include findings under R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(iv) and (v).

State v. Oller · filed 2017-09-12(G)(1)

The trial court is hereby instructed to "state the findings of the trier of fact required by division (B)(2)(e) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, relative to the imposition or modification of the sentence" except it is not required to set forth those findings required by R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(iv) and (v). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(1); 2929.14(B)(2)(e).

Section 2953.08(G)(1) requires an appellate court to remand when the sentencing court fails to state required findings on the record.

State v. Wells · filed 2017-11-30(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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate and remand a felony sentence that is contrary to law instead of modifying it.

State v. Powers · filed 2018-02-09(G)(2)

We review felony sentences under the two-pronged approach set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Here, we find that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... Further, we decline appellant’s request to modify his sentence, and instead remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to merge allied-offense sentences in place of remand when the state has not elected which count to pursue for sentencing.

State v. Brownlee · filed 2018-03-01(G)(2)

We acknowledge that the state’s suggestion that we invoke our authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to merge the kidnapping count into the aggravated murder count could be viewed as a de facto selection. This would be a sensible approach, but unfortunately, it is not an approach that can be utilized under existing precedent. ... The state made no such election in this case, so we are constrained to find that the election should be made in the first instance below.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) empowers an appellate court to modify a felony sentence after finding an error of law.

State v. Williams · filed 2018-04-19(G)(2)

Having found an error of law in Williams' sentencing, we are specifically empowered by both App.R. 12(A)(1)(a) and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to "modify" the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) empowers an appellate court to modify a felony sentence when it finds a sentencing error of law.

State v. Smith · filed 2018-05-17(G)(2)

Having found an error of law in appellant's sentencing, we are specifically empowered by both App.R. 12(A)(1)(a) and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to "modify" the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Section 2953.08(G) authorizes an appellate court to modify a sentence, but the court may instead remand for the trial court to decide whether consecutive sentences are warranted and make the required findings.

State v. Brown · filed 2018-11-21(G)

And we recognize that under R.C. 2953.08(G) we have the authority to modify a sentence, as this court has occasionally done, but we decline to broadly take the trial court’s sentencing authority away because it made a mistake.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits a reviewing court to modify a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that required statutory findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Young · filed 2020-03-20(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that a reviewing court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that either the record does not support certain required statutory findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence contrary to law and remand for resentencing when the trial court retains sentencing discretion.

State v. Thomas · filed 2022-02-16(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a felony sentence and remand the case to the trial court if the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... In light of that discretion, remanding the case to the trial court is a more appropriate course of action.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court that clearly and convincingly finds a sentence contrary to law to remand for resentencing limited to correcting postrelease control.

State v. Gray · filed 2022-03-24(G)(2)(b)

“R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court, upon finding that a sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, to remand for resentencing” “limited to the proper imposition of postrelease control.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of consecutive sentences as contrary to law when the trial court fails to make the required findings.

State v. Ferguson · filed 2022-05-17(G)(2)

Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences without considering and making the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) is contrary to law.

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

State v. Padilla · filed 2023-06-16(G)(2)

This court may modify Padilla’s sentence only if it “clearly and convincingly find[s] 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) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based solely on the sentencing court's unnecessary consideration of R.C. 2929.13(B) factors.

State v. McIntosh · filed 2023-11-06(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we are unable to modify or vacate McIntosh's sentence based on any claimed error in the trial court's additional consideration of R.C. 2929.13(B) factors.

Section 2953.08’s independent appellate review bars relitigation of claims challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence in a postconviction petition.

State v. Sneed, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2000) · filed 2000-09-29

We further note the independent appellate review mandated by R.C. 2953.08 requires these claims to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Section 2953.08(E) generally requires a defendant to appeal a felony sentence within the time allowed by App.R. 4(B).

State v. Fugate, Unpublished Decision (11-13-2000) · filed 2000-11-13(E)

R.C. 2953.08 , which governs appeal of felony sentences, states that a defendant generally must file an appeal of a sentence within the time limits specified in App.R. 4(B).

Section 2953.08(A)(2) applies only to fourth- and fifth-degree felonies or felony drug offenses specifically subject to R.C. 2929.13(B) for sentencing.

State v. Rowland, Unpublished Decision (5-11-2001) · filed 2001-05-11(A)(2)

We reject this argument because neither R.C. 2953.08 (A)(2) nor R.C. 2929.13 (B)(1) applies to this case. R.C. 2953.08 (A)(2) applies only to fourth- and fifth-degree felonies or to felony drug offenses that are specifically subject to R.C. 2929.13 (B) for purposes of sentencing.

Section 2953.08 requires a felony sentence appeal within 30 days unless a timely motion for a new trial or to arrest judgment extends the filing period.

State v. Delgado, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2002) · filed 2002-05-23

By referring to App.R. 4 (B), which provides exceptions to the 30-day rule when a defendant timely files a motion for a new trial or to arrest judgment, R.C. 2953.08 appears to allow an extension to the 30-day period only when a defendant files a motion for a new trial or arrest of judgment in conjunction with his felony sentence appeal. When no such motions are filed, the general 30-day rule applies.

Section 2953.08(A) permits an appeal from a maximum sentence if the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Baker, Unpublished Decision (10-29-2004) · filed 2004-10-29(A)

A maximum sentence may be appealed pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (A) if it is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(A)(2) does not give a defendant a right to appeal a prison sentence for a fourth or fifth degree felony when the sentencing court specifies that it found one of the listed statutory factors.

State v. Payne, Unpublished Decision (7-14-2005) · filed 2005-07-14(A)(2)

This conclusion ignores the language of R.C. 2953.08 (A), which authorizes an appeal only if the court did not specify at sentencing that it found one of the statutory factors. Because the court did find a factor, that is, having served a prison term, defendant is not entitled to an appeal under this specific statute, regardless of the presence or absence of any other factors.

Section 2953.08(A)(4) allows a defendant convicted of or pleading guilty to a felony to appeal a sentence that is contrary to law, but does not authorize a motion in the trial court to vacate the sentence.

State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2005) · filed 2005-11-10(A)(4)

R.C. 2953.08 (A)(4) provides that a defendant who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony may appeal as a matter of right the sentence imposed upon the defendant if that sentence is contrary to law. The statute, however, contains no provision allowing a defendant to file a motion with the trial court to vacate his sentence.

Section 2953.08 requires challenges to a trial court’s compliance with felony-sentencing statutes R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 to be raised in a timely direct appeal.

State v. Holdcroft · filed 2013-11-20

For example, challenges to a trial court’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, which may be brought by either the defendant or the state, must still be presented in a timely direct appeal under R.C. 2953.08.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) authorizes an appellate court to modify a felony sentence and vacate an unlawful prison term.

State v. Lewis · filed 2019-09-27(G)(2)

We exercise our authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to modify appellant’s sentence, and we vacate one five-year prison term for the discharge specification, leaving one five-year prison term for the discharge specification.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellant to show by clear and convincing evidence that a felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Bennett · filed 2019-11-08(G)(2)

Appellant bears the burden of identifying clear and convincing evidence the sentence imposed was contrary to law.

Relief under § 2953.08(G)(2) must be supported by the record and the arguments raised on appeal.

State v. Burey · filed 2021-03-25(G)(2)

And the request for this court to vacate, modify, or decrease his sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) based on these arguments is unsupported by the record and the arguments raised herein.

Section 2953.08(A)(2) requires leave to appeal a prison sentence for a fourth-degree felony when the trial court finds that a factor in section 2929.13(B)(1)(b) applies.

State v. Vega · filed 2023-04-06(A)(2)

A review of the record demonstrates that the trial court did find that one of the factors in R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b) applied to Vega. However, Vega did not seek leave to appeal his sentence. Therefore, appellate review of Vega’s sentence is barred pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(A)(2).

Section 2953.08(E) incorporates the appellate filing deadline, which the court held requires an appeal of a sentence within 30 days.

Hughes Jr v. Shoop · filed 2023-10-30(E)

While O.R.C. § 2953.08(A) does not contain an explicit reference to a deadline or to Appellate Rule 4, the clear and unequivocal reference in R.C. § 2953.08(E) supports the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion.

Subsection (G)(2) requires appellate review of the sentencing record and permits sentence modification when the record lacks required findings or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hill, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2002) · filed 2002-11-18(G)(2)

Subsection (G)(2) of R.C. 2953.08 states: "The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court. The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: {¶ 40} "(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of Section 2929.13 , Division (E)(4) of Section 2929.14 , or Division (H) of Section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant. {¶ 41} "(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to modify or vacate it and remand for resentencing when the record clearly and convincingly fails to support it or it is contrary to law.

State v. Hiles, Unpublished Decision (11-26-2003) · filed 2003-11-26

"`Meaningful review' means that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."

Section 2953.08 does not permit appellate review of a felony sentence based solely on an abuse of discretion claim.

State v. Shropshire, 21761 (9-28-2007) · filed 2007-09-28

We have previously held that an abuse of discretion claim is not a proper ground for appealing a sentence, or a matter for which R.C. 2953.08 permits appellate review.

Section 2953.08 does not permit appellate review of a felony sentence based solely on an abuse of discretion claim.

State v. Lenton, 06ca0091 (9-28-2007) · filed 2007-09-28

More importantly, this court has held that an abuse of discretion claim is not a ground for which R.C. 2953.08 permits appellate review.

Section 2953.08(A)(4) allows a defendant to challenge a felony sentence that is contrary to law.

Ruhlman v. Brunsman · filed 2011-12-23(A)(4)

By contrast, Ohio law allows defendants like Ruhlman to challenge sentences that are “contrary to law.” O.R.C. § 2953.08(A)(4). Thus, unlike the defendant in Miller, Ruhlman retained his right to appeal his sentence and, in fact, did so.

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

State v. Torres · filed 2020-07-31(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) 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 upon clearly and convincingly finding specified statutory error or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Stanley · filed 2021-01-19(G)(2)

The Ohio Supreme Court has further clarified that a sentencing court’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 does not provide grounds for a reviewing court to vacate or otherwise modify a sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate reversal or modification of a felony sentence to sentences unsupported by relevant statutory findings or otherwise contrary to law, and does not permit independent reweighing of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors.

State v. Denoyer · filed 2021-03-22(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.” ... Thus, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that an appellate court may not modify or vacate a felony sentence based upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s “findings” under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. ... As a result of the Supreme Court’s holding in Jones, when reviewing felony sentences that are imposed solely after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, we shall no longer analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record. We simply must determine whether those sentences are contrary to law.

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. Campbell · filed 2021-06-18(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides that “[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 * * *, and is imposed by the sentencing judge * * *. If all three conditions are met, the defendant may not appeal the sentence.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to change a felony sentence when clear and convincing evidence shows the record fails to support required findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Smith · filed 2021-08-10(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: ... (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to vacate a judicial release modification and remand when it clearly and convincingly finds that the modification did not follow the required procedures.

State v. McClendon, Unpublished Decision (12-26-2000) · filed 2000-12-26(G)(2)(b)

The court hearing an appeal under division (B)(3) of this section of a trial court's modification pursuant to section 2929.20 of the Revised Code of a sentence that was imposed upon a defendant for a felony of a first or second degree may overturn the modification and reinstate the original sentence, or may vacate the modification of the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration, only if the court clearly and convincingly finds any of the following: ... (b) That the modification was not made in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, that the defendant was not eligible for the modification under that section, or that the modification otherwise was contrary to law. ... We therefore affirm in part as modified, reverse in part and vacate the modification of the sentence.

Section 2953.08(A)(4) does not give a defendant a right to appeal the denial of judicial release as a sentence contrary to law.

State v. Hedgecoth, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2007) · filed 2007-08-31(A)(4)

Therefore, R.C. 2953.08 (A)(4) does not apply to the denial of, just as R.C. 2953.08 (B)(2) does not apply to the granting of, a modification of a sentence that is alleged to be "contrary to law."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a judicial release 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. Bilbrey, 08ca009315 (12-31-2008) · filed 2008-12-31(G)(2)

This Court's standard of review is set forth in Section 2953.08 (G)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code. ... This Court has reviewed the record, including the trial court's findings, and it cannot clearly and convincingly find either that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under Section 2929.20 (H) or that the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) governs appellate review of whether the record supports findings for judicial release; when a trial court does not identify a mitigating ground it relied on, the appellate court may remand for that ground to be identified and the factors reweighed.

State v. Nichter · filed 2016-10-11(G)(2)(a)

Nevertheless, because the trial court expressly relied on other "substantial grounds to mitigate [appellee's] conduct," in making its finding under R.C. 2929.20(J)(1)(b), but did not identify those grounds, rather than modify or vacate the trial court's judgment, this matter shall be remanded for the trial court to expressly identify the other substantial grounds mitigating appellee's conduct on which it relied and to reweigh the statutory factors in light of this decision.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the standard for reviewing a judicial release decision: an appellate court may intervene when clear and convincing evidence shows that the trial court’s findings lack record support or the decision is contrary to law.

State v. Ledford · filed 2017-01-17(G)(2)

Thus, in accordance with R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the applicable standard of review this court must apply is whether the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court's findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.20(J) or whether the decision is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a grant of judicial release and remand with instructions to deny release when the required finding lacks clear and convincing record support.

State v. Nichter · filed 2019-01-29(G)(2)

Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we hereby vacate the trial court's judgment granting judicial release and remand this matter for the trial court to issue an order denying judicial release.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal of judicial release when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s findings or that the decision is contrary to law.

State v. Burns · filed 2021-10-13(G)(2)

The correct standard on appeal is whether this Court can clearly and convincingly find the record does not contain evidence to support the trial court’s findings or that the decision was otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of challenges to an aggravated murder sentence based on the trial court’s sentencing findings.

State v. Weaver · filed 2017-06-16(D)(3)

Pursuant to the clear mandate of the General Assembly in R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), as well as the case law precedent set forth in Porterfield and Patterson, supra, we find appellant’s above arguments are unreviewable in the present appeal.

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

State v. Cleary · filed 2017-06-02(D)(3)

A sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to R.C. 2929.02 to R.C. 2929.06 is not subject to review. R.C. 2953.08(D)(3).

Section 2953.08 bars review of an aggravated-murder sentence itself but permits review of whether the trial court made the findings required to impose it consecutively.

State v. Johnson · filed 2017-03-29(D)(3)

While an appellate court may not review the actual sentence imposed for aggravated murder pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D), nothing in R.C. 2953.08(D) precludes review of whether the trial court complied with the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when ordering that sentence to be served consecutively.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of an aggravated murder sentence imposed under R.C. 2929.02 to 2929.06, including a claim that the sentencing court failed to consider mitigating factors.

State v. Campbell · filed 2016-11-03(D)(3)

We have followed Porterfield and applied the “clear” language of R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) to reject the same argument made in other cases — that the court erred by imposing a sentence of life without the possibility of parole without considering the R.C. 2929.12 factors in mitigation of conduct.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) precludes evidentiary review of an aggravated murder sentence imposed under section 2929.03(A)(1)(a).

State v. Jackson · filed 2014-08-21(D)(3)

Accordingly, evidentiary review of a sentence imposed by a trial court pursuant to R.C. 2929.03(A)(1)(a) is precluded.

Section 2953.08(D) excludes sentences for aggravated murder and murder from review under the section.

State v. Hollingsworth · filed 2001-05-21(D)

Finally, R.C. 2953.08, which was adopted as part of Senate Bill 2 and governs the review of felony sentences imposed pursuant to its provisions, likewise excludes aggravated murder and murder sentences from its scope.

Section 2953.08(D) does not bar a traditional appeal challenging a murder sentence as contrary to law.

State v. Steele, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2001) · filed 2001-06-28(D)

Therefore, appellant's contention here that imposition of consecutive sentences is contrary to law (in particular, R.C. 2929.14 [E][4]) is not precluded by operation of R.C. 2953.08 (D).

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of an aggravated murder sentence but permits review of the procedure used to determine it.

State v. Hancock, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2003) · filed 2003-03-31(D)

We agree with Hancock's cross-assignment of error, but do not agree that R.C. 2953.08 (D) precludes us from reviewing the procedure the trial court used in determining the sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed under R.C. 2929.02 to 2929.06.

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

Thus, under R.C. 2953.08 (D), we lack jurisdiction to review the imposition of the aggravated-murder sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) bars review of a sentence imposed for aggravated murder.

State v. Lowe, Unpublished Decision (12-17-2003) · filed 2003-12-17(D)

As appellant was convicted of aggravated murder, he cannot appeal his sentence.

Section 2953.08(D) precludes evidentiary review of an aggravated murder sentence imposed under R.C. 2929.03(D)(2).

State v. McDowell, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2005) · filed 2005-12-29(D)

However, R.C. 2953.08 (D) precludes such an evidentiary review of the aggravated murder sentence the trial court imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.03 (D)(2).

Section 2953.08 excludes a sentence imposed for aggravated murder under sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 from review under its felony-sentence appeal provisions.

State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (10-19-2007) · filed 2007-10-19(D)(1)(3)

This provision does not apply because R.C. 2953.08 (D)(1)(3) specifically provides that "[a] sentence imposed for aggravated murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 of the Revised Code is not subject to review under this section."

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars evidentiary review of a sentence for aggravated murder imposed under R.C. 2929.02 to 2929.06.

State v. Patterson · filed 2013-04-22(D)(3)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) and case law interpreting this statute, this Court is without statutory authority to review appellant’s sentence on an evidentiary basis.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) precludes evidentiary appellate review of a sentence imposed for aggravated murder.

State v. Jones · filed 2013-11-01(D)(3)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) and case law interpreting this statute, this Court is without statutory authority to review appellant's sentence on an evidentiary basis.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of a sentence imposed for aggravated murder.

State v. Roark · filed 2015-09-21(D)(3)

Thus, his sentence is not subject to appellate review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3).

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

State v. Bass · filed 2015-09-29(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 2929.14(C)(4), or 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 otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Howell · filed 2015-09-29(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 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. Kubat · filed 2015-09-30(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) specifies two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (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 clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Sutton · filed 2015-10-01(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce or modify a challenged felony sentence or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing if it “clearly and convincingly finds” 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 it clearly and convincingly finds that specified findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Terrel · filed 2015-10-09(G)(2)

With respect to the issue raised regarding the length of the sentence, we are guided by the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... “Under this statute, 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) requires appellate courts to review the entire record and permits modification of a sentence when the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the required consecutive-sentencing findings.

State v. Kay · filed 2015-10-23(G)(2)

However, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) 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) permits a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences when they are contrary to law or the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the required findings.

State v. McCray · filed 2015-11-12(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(D)(1) does not bar appellate review when the record does not establish that the defendant and prosecution jointly recommended the sentence.

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

With the record before us, we cannot conclude that an agreed sentence “recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution” existed in this case. ... Because we cannot conclude that an agreed sentence existed between the parties in this case, we will address the merits of Childers’s appeal.

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; abuse of discretion is not the standard.

State v. Hall · filed 2015-11-23(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, 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 clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The appellate court's standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

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

State v. Kellish · filed 2016-05-04(D)(3)

A sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to R.C. 2929.02 to R.C. 2929.06 is not subject to review.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review under this section of a sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder.

State v. Underwood · filed 2018-02-23(D)(3)

In turn, R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) provides: “A sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 of the Revised Code is not subject to review under this section.” ... We will therefore not apply our analysis in the present assigned error to Count 9.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) excludes sentences for aggravated murder from appellate review under this section.

State v. Burkes · filed 2018-12-06(D)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), we lack statutory authority to review Burkes’s sentence for aggravated murder and overrule Burkes’s fifth assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar review of a jointly recommended juvenile disposition when the child was not designated a serious youthful offender or sentenced as an adult under Chapter 2929.

In re D.E. · filed 2024-05-08(D)(1)

Here however, D.E. was not found to be a serious youthful offender and he was not sentenced as if he were an adult under Chapter 2929. Therefore, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) is inapplicable to his disposition and does not preclude our review of it.

Section 2953.08 governs appeals of adult sentences and does not authorize an appeal from a juvenile disposition.

In Re Keith, Unpublished Decision (9-25-2001) · filed 2001-09-25

The state's appeal can also not be pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 , which pertains to adult sentencing.

Section 2953.08 governs adult felony sentencing appeals and does not give the state an appeal as of right from a juvenile delinquency disposition.

In re K.S. · filed 2011-02-16(B)(2)

R.C. 2953.08 authorizes appeals based upon the felony-sentencing guidelines, and, therefore, pertains to adult sentencing.

Section 2953.08(B) does not give the state an appeal of right from a juvenile delinquency disposition, even when the conduct would be a felony if committed by an adult.

In re T.D. · filed 2014-04-25(B)

R.C. 2953.08(B) provides that the state “may appeal as a matter of right a sentence imposed upon a defendant who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony[.]” Neither statute says anything about dispositions in juvenile cases. ... We agree with the reasoning of the court in K.S., and we hold that the state does not have an appeal of right in this case.

Section 2953.08 permits appellate review of costs of confinement and reversal when their imposition is contrary to law.

State v. Brazzel · filed 2024-07-19(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

We review the imposition of the costs of confinement under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b) and will reverse if we find it was contrary to law to impose these costs.

Section 2953.08 provides for review of costs of supervision and confinement in a felony sentence and reversal if imposing those costs was contrary to law.

State v. Patterson · filed 2024-06-07(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

We review the imposition of the costs of supervision and confinement under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b) and will reverse if we find it was contrary to law to impose these costs.

Section 2953.08 provides contrary-to-law review of costs and financial sanctions imposed in a felony sentence.

State v. Phillips · filed 2017-08-04(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

Our standard of review on this issue is whether the imposition of costs and financial sanctions was contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 requires appellate courts reviewing restitution imposed as part of a felony sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Thornton · filed 2017-05-31(G)(2)(b)

After reviewing Marcum, the cases from the other Ohio appellate districts, and R.C. 2953.08, we hold that the proper standard of review when analyzing the imposition of restitution as a part of a felony sentence is whether the sentence complies with R.C. 2953.08. In other words, the proper standard of review is whether this court clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Anderson · filed 2016-09-30(G)(2)(b)

Therefore, in light of the recent Supreme Court and other appellate court decisions, when reviewing restitution orders, we will apply the extremely deferential standard used by the Twelfth and Sixth Districts. Prior to increasing, reducing, or otherwise modifying a sentence that is appealed, or vacating the sentence and remanding the matter for resentencing, we will seek to determine whether the trial court’s restitution order is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Geldrich · filed 2016-06-13(G)(2)(b)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), this court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed, or vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing, if we clearly and convincingly find the sentence is contrary to law. The term "sentence" as utilized in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) encompasses an order of restitution.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a financial sanction only upon clear and convincing evidence that it is contrary to law.

State v. Gamble, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2002) · filed 2002-03-22(G)(2)

A court of appeals cannot modify a financial sanction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is contrary to law .

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify a financial sanction only if clear and convincing evidence shows that it is contrary to law.

State v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2002) · filed 2002-03-22(G)(2)

On appeal, a reviewing court cannot modify a financial sanction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is contrary to law .

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify a financial sanction only if clear and convincing evidence shows that it lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Dyer, Unpublished Decision (7-10-2006) · filed 2006-07-10(G)(2)

An appellate court may not modify a financial sanction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is not supported by the record or is contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify a financial sanction only if clear and convincing evidence shows that it is unsupported by the record or contrary to law.

State v. Rice, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2007) · filed 2007-03-26(G)

As with other aspects of a criminal sentence, an appellate court cannot modify a financial sanction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is not supported by the record or is contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08 (G); State v. Dyer , Butler App. No. CA2005-05-109, 2006-Ohio-2357, ¶ 30; State v. Blanton (Mar. 19, 2001), Butler App. No. CA99-11-202.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to reverse a financial sanction upon clear and convincing evidence that it is unsupported by the record or contrary to law.

State v. Radway, 06ap-1003 (8-21-2007) · filed 2007-08-21(G)

As with other aspects of a criminal sentence, an appellate court may not modify a financial sanction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sanction is not supported by the record or is contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08 (G). ... For this reason, we find by clear and convincing evidence that the restitution order is not supported by the record and, therefore, must be reversed.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) governs appellate review of restitution imposed as part of a felony sentence.

State v. Collins · filed 2015-09-14(G)(2)(b)

Accordingly, the proper standard of review for analyzing the imposition of restitution as a part of a felony sentence is whether the sentence complies with R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08 allows appellate review of financial sanctions for legal error and permits modification when clear and convincing evidence shows a sanction lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Johnson · filed 2017-10-13(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

Our standard of review on this issue is whether the imposition of costs and financial sanctions was contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b); State v. Farless, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-15-1060 and L-15-1061, 2016-Ohio-1571, ¶ 4, citing State v. Collins, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-11-135, 2015-Ohio-3710, 41 N.E.3d 899, ¶ 30 (“An appellate court may not modify a financial sanction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is not supported by the record or is contrary to law.”).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to increase, reduce, or modify a felony restitution order upon clear and convincing evidence that the order is contrary to law.

State v. Isaacs · filed 2017-09-15(G)(2)(b)

This means that we may increase, reduce, or modify a restitution order if we find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the restitution order is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 provides for reversal of a decision imposing costs and financial sanctions if it is contrary to law.

State v. Duhart · filed 2017-09-29(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

We will reverse a trial court’s decision to impose costs and financial sanctions if it is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits modification of a felony restitution order when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds it contrary to law.

State v. Richmond · filed 2018-01-16(G)(2)(b)

Because Richmond's appeal does not concern findings under R.C. 2929.13, 2929.14, or 2929.20, the second prong of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) applies. Accordingly, modification of the trial court's restitution order depends on a clear and convincing finding that the order was contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) sets the appellate standard for reviewing costs and financial sanctions imposed as part of a felony sentence: whether their imposition is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Dean · filed 2018-04-06(G)(2)(b)

In reviewing a trial court’s imposition of costs and financial sanctions as part of a felony sentence, we apply the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), inquiring whether the imposition of costs and financial sanctions is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 provides for appellate review of whether costs and financial sanctions imposed at sentencing are contrary to law.

State v. Dean · filed 2018-05-04(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

Our standard of review on this issue is whether the imposition of costs and financial sanctions was contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) treats a restitution order as part of a felony sentence for appellate review.

State v. Blevings · filed 2018-10-29(G)(2)(b)

The term "sentence" as utilized in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) encompasses an order of restitution.

Section 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b) provide for review of imposed costs and financial sanctions to determine whether they are contrary to law.

State v. Nettles · filed 2018-11-09(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

We review the trial court’s imposition of costs and financial sanctions to determine whether the imposition of such costs was contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b); State v. Farless, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-15-1060 and L-15-1061, 2016-Ohio-1571.

Section 2953.08 provides for review of whether the imposition of sentencing costs and financial sanctions was contrary to law.

State v. Ciboro · filed 2018-11-16(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

Our standard of review on this issue is whether the imposition of costs and financial sanctions was contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08 limits modification of a financial sanction to cases where clear and convincing evidence shows that the sanction lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Fulton · filed 2019-06-24(G)(2)(b)

We review the imposition of costs and financial sanctions under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b). ... An appellate court may not modify a financial sanction imposed unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sanction is not supported by the record or is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to modify a financial sanction only on clear and convincing evidence that it lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Riley · filed 2019-08-19(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

We review the imposition of costs and financial sanctions under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b). ... “ʻAn appellate court may not modify a financial sanction imposed unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sanction is not supported by the record or is contrary to law.’”

Section 2953.08 provides a contrary-to-law standard for appellate review of costs and financial sanctions imposed at sentencing.

State v. Jeffery · filed 2019-11-08(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

Our standard of review on this issue is whether the imposition of costs and financial sanctions was contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08 provides a contrary-to-law standard for appellate review of imposed costs.

State v. Robinson · filed 2020-12-30(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

“An appellate court may not modify a financial sanction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is not supported by the record or is contrary to law.” State v. Farless, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-15-1060 and L-15-1061, 2016-Ohio-1571, ¶ 4, citing State v. Collins, 2015-Ohio-3710, 41 N.E.3d 899, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.). Therefore, “our standard of review on this issue is whether the imposition of costs was contrary to law.” State v. Haynes, 2020-Ohio-1049, 152 N.E.3d 1217, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.), citing R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to vacate a fine because the record does not support a finding about the offender’s ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5).

State v. Brock · filed 2021-04-09(G)(2)(a)

Although Brock challenges the trial court’s assessment of her ability to pay, nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) authorizes this court to vacate a fine on the basis that the record does not support a sentencing court’s finding on ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5).

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to modify a financial sanction only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sanction lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Burton · filed 2023-05-12(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

Our standard of review is whether the imposition of costs and financial sanctions was contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b). State v. Ivey, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1243, 2021-Ohio-2138, ¶ 7. An appellate court cannot modify a financial sanction unless that court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the imposition of the financial sanction is not supported by the record or is contrary to law. Id.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) governs appellate review of a financial sanction imposed for a felony.

State v. Siniff · filed 2025-09-15(G)(2)(b)

Appellate review of a trial court’s imposition of a financial sanction for a felony is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).