Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

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

State v. Watson · filed 2020-03-27(G)(2)

In reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is contrary to law.

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

State v. O'Connor · filed 2020-09-11(G)(2)

In reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 9. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to alter a felony sentence only upon a clear and convincing finding that specified findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Bozarth · filed 2021-01-08(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Evans · filed 2021-03-12(G)(2)

We have repeatedly ruled that, based upon the language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), when a sentence is not contrary to law, we may only vacate or modify a felony sentence if we find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence.

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

State v. Montgomery · filed 2021-07-13(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Patterson · filed 2021-11-08(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court can modify or vacate a sentence only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the ... trial court's findings under certain statutes, which are not at issue in this appeal, 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 the specified findings lack clear and convincing record support or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Evers · filed 2021-12-03(G)(2)

We review felony sentences under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 9. That statute provides an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify ... a sentence, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing, if it clearly and convincingly that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under certain statutory provisions not at issue in this case or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Smith · filed 2022-02-14(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may 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.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate or modify a felony sentence only when the record fails to support specified findings or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Saunders · filed 2022-04-29(G)(2)

Concerning Saunders’ sentence, appellate review is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Under that statute, we may vacate or modify a sentence only if the record does not support findings under certain enumerated statutes or if the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Curtis · filed 2022-05-20(G)(2)

Under that 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) the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under certain statutes (including R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which concerns the imposition of consecutive sentences); or (2) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Kindle · filed 2022-08-29(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.” ... Under the facts and circumstances of this case we do not find that Kindle has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that his consecutive sentences were improper.

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

State v. Hensley · filed 2023-01-17(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.

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

State v. Walker · filed 2023-01-18(G)(2)

We review a challenge to a felony sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... “[O]nce the trial court makes the factual findings required by [the statute] 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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence merely because it would weigh the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 differently.

State v. McCormick · filed 2023-04-21(G)(2)(b)

Moreover, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Jones at ¶ 39. Therefore, when reviewing felony sentences that are imposed solely after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, we do not analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record but only whether those sentences are contrary to law.

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

State v. Lake · filed 2023-09-08(G)(2)(a)

“[U]pon a de novo review of the record, an appellate court may reverse or modify a defendant’s consecutive sentences—including the number of consecutive sentences imposed—when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not ... support the trial court’s findings.” Id.; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ... Thus, the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of consecutive sentences, requiring review of the trial court’s findings and whether the record supports them.

State v. Robinson · filed 2023-09-29(G)(2)

If the findings have been made, appellate review of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), requires that the court consider only the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings actually made by the trial court, the court then determines whether clear and convincing ... evidence supports the findings, and finally, whether the findings are supported by the record.

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

State v. Mullins · filed 2023-11-21(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for sentencing where we clearly and convincingly find 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(l), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Grim · filed 2023-12-11(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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the sentencing court’s when reviewing compliance with sentencing principles and factors.

State v. Taylor · filed 2024-01-23(G)(2)

Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits this Court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to determine a sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. ... 2929.12.

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

State v. Jennings · filed 2024-02-05(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony 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."

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

State v. Lantow · filed 2024-07-26(G)(2)

We review challenges to felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... As we do not have a “firm belief or conviction” that the trial court’s findings are not supported by the record, we find Lantow’s assignment of error not-well taken.

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

State v. Holycross · filed 2024-07-26(G)(2)

The Ohio Supreme Court has now made it clear that “an appellate court is directed that it must have a firm belief or conviction that the record does not support the trial court’s findings before it may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify consecutive sentences.” Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 15.

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

State v. Cartwright · filed 2024-12-02(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.” State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. ... Consequently, applying the standing precedent of this court, we conclude that Cartwright’s sentence is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence only on specified findings made by clear and convincing evidence.

State v. Dillard · filed 2024-12-09(G)(2)

Turning to the R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard of review, the statute permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence only if the appellate court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under certain statutes - R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or R.C. 2929.20(I) - or that the ... sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based solely on its view that the record does not support the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; the court must determine whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Mayfield · filed 2024-12-11(G)(2)(b)

Pursuant to Jones, when reviewing felony sentences that are imposed solely after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, appellate courts shall no longer analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record. Rather, ... we simply must determine whether those sentences are contrary to law.

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

State v. Wolfe · filed 2025-03-14(G)

“When reviewing felony sentences, a court of appeals must apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G).” State v. Williams, 2022-Ohio-2897, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Farra, 2022-Ohio-1421, ¶ 73 (2d Dist.). Under that statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate it altogether 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) governs appellate review of the adult portion of a blended serious youthful offender sentence and permits reversal when the statutory findings lack clear and convincing support or the sentence is contrary to law.

In re K.F. · filed 2025-04-07(G)(2)

Thus, when reviewing the adult-portion of a blended SYO disposition, 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” as provided under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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 sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Gill · filed 2025-05-21(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may only modify or vacate a felony sentence if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s sentencing findings under certain specified divisions, including “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,” or if we find that the sentence is otherwise ... contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to uphold consecutive-sentence findings unless the record clearly and convincingly fails to support them.

State v. Okonski · filed 2026-06-08(G)(2)

When reviewing consecutive sentences on appeal, “[t]he plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial court’s findings must be upheld unless ... those findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5.

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

State v. Singh · filed 2022-09-26(G)(2)

Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court may modify or vacate 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.'"

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

State v. Minshall · filed 2024-03-18(G)(2)(b)

For the foregoing reasons, we do not clearly and convincingly find that the restitution order is contrary to law based on the trial court’s failure to give Mr. Minshall the ... credits to which he claims entitlement.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate or modify a felony sentence only upon the specified clear-and-convincing finding.

State v. Johnson · filed 2024-08-26(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an ... appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify 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. Goss · filed 2025-08-27(G)(2)

Instead, 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 modify a felony sentence after finding that the trial court increased it based on an impermissible consideration.

State v. Basile · filed 2022-09-26(G)(2)(b)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), we modify appellant’s sentence to the originally imposed, aggregate, 40-month prison term that the trial court ordered prior to ... increasing his sentence to 60 months.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when clear and convincing evidence shows that required findings are unsupported or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Morton, Unpublished Decision (5-11-2005) · filed 2005-05-11(G)(2)

When reviewing a sentence on appeal, an appellate court "may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence" or it may vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G) requires appellate courts to review felony sentences under a clear-and-convincing standard and permits modification or remand when the record does not support the sentence or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hall, 07ap-292 (9-25-2007) · filed 2007-09-25(G)

In State v. Burton , Franklin App. No. 06AP-690, 2007-Ohio-1941 , at ¶ 19 , this court held that "R.C. 2953.08 (G) requires us to continue to review felony sentences under the clear and convincing standard." Thus, "[p]ursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G), an appellate court may modify a sentence or remand for resentencing if the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds either the record does not support the sentence, or the sentence is contrary to law."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the appellate standards for reviewing sentencing findings and whether the trial court followed the required sentencing analysis.

State v. Nayar, Unpublished Decision (11-7-2007) · filed 2007-11-07(G)(2)

Professor Katz contends that the standard of review "remains governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)," which contains the "clearly and convincing" standard concerning "findings" and the "contrary to law" standard concerning the courts application of the statute's mandated analytical process. Our reading of Foster, which is controlling upon us regardless of its persuasiveness to the commentators, convinces us that the review of sentencing decisions now requires us to apply a "hybrid" standard of review. After Foster, there are still procedural steps or analytical processes the trial court must follow, e.g., the court must consider R.C. 2929.11 (purposes of felony sentencing) and R.C. 2929.12 (seriousness and recidivism factors). Failure to do so amounts to reversible error regardless of whether considered to be "contrary to law" or a "process flaw" under the abuse of discretion standard.

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to act when it clearly and convincingly finds that a felony sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Ward, 07ca9 (5-7-2008) · filed 2008-05-07(G)

Thus, even after Foster , "[t]he 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 * * * [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate review of a felony sentence under a clear-and-convincing standard for specified statutory error or a sentence contrary to law.

State v. Walton, 07-Ca-A-12-0066 (12-31-2008) · filed 2008-12-31(G)(2)

Thus, despite the fact that R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) refers to the excised judicial fact-finding portions of the sentencing scheme, an appellate court remains precluded from using an abuse-of-discretion standard of review when initially reviewing a defendant's sentence. Instead, the appellate court must ensure that the trial court has adhered to all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence. As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08 (G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts to review felony sentences using a two-prong approach.

State v. Toney · filed 2011-05-18(G)(2)

Based on the felony sentencing review statute, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the appellate courts must use a two-prong approach when dealing with sentencing issues: “First, they must examine the sentencing court's compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. If this first prong is satisfied, the trial court's decision shall be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”

Section 2953.08(G) requires appellate courts to determine whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Cook · filed 2012-04-03(G)

“Thus, despite the fact that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) refers to the excised judicial fact-finding portions of the sentencing scheme, an appellate court remains precluded from using an abuse-of-discretion standard of review when initially reviewing a defendant's sentence. Instead, the appellate court must ensure that the trial court has adhered to all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence. As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08(G).” Kalish at ¶ 14.

Section 2953.08(G) requires appellate courts to review felony sentences to determine whether they are clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Dutiel · filed 2012-11-13(G)(2)

Thus, despite the fact that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) refers to the excised judicial fact-finding portions of the sentencing scheme, an appellate court remains precluded from using an abuse-of-discretion standard of review when initially reviewing a defendant's sentence. Instead, the appellate court must ensure that the trial court has adhered to all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence. As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to vacate or modify a felony sentence only upon clear and convincing evidence that the record lacks support for the trial court’s findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Jones · filed 2016-08-11(G)(2)

In State v. Marcum, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1002, the Ohio Supreme Court, in recently “address[ing] the standard of review that appellate courts must apply when reviewing felony sentences,” stated that when “[a]pplying the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), * * * an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Id. at ¶ 1.

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

State v. D'Amico · filed 2017-04-12(G)(2)

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” ... We conclude that the record here supports the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes and that the sentence is not otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Burden · filed 2017-06-21(G)(2)

“The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Carmel · filed 2017-09-13(G)(2)

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds specified statutory defects or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Peters · filed 2018-03-09(G)(2)

We review a challenge to a felony sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. McShaffrey · filed 2018-05-09(G)(2)

“An appellate court’s standard for review of a felony sentence is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” State v. Stevens, 9th Dist. Medina Nos. 16CA0033-M & 16CA0034-M, 2017-Ohio-5482, ¶ 10, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that ‘an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise ... contrary to law.’” Stevens at ¶ 10, quoting State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. O'Keefe · filed 2019-03-11(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, applying the plain language of that statute, the Supreme Court held that ‘an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.’”

Section 2953.08(G) permits appellate review of whether the record supports the findings underlying a felony sentence.

State v. Allen · filed 2019-04-05(G)

Also, though not directly raised by counsel, any argument that we could find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the consecutive service findings would be without arguable merit.

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

State v. Hamilton · filed 2019-05-13(G)(2)

“The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that ‘an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.’” State v. Stevens, 9th Dist. Medina ... Nos. 16CA0033-M and 16CA0034-M, 2017-Ohio-5482, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Morgan · filed 2019-06-13(G)(2)

Appellate courts review felony sentences under the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) an “appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and ... convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Buckley · filed 2019-09-30(G)(2)

“Thus, applying the plain language of that statute, the Supreme Court held that ‘an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.’”

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

State v. Andrews · filed 2020-04-29(G)(2)

An appellate court’s standard for review of a felony sentence is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Cox · filed 2020-08-10(G)(2)

An appellate court’s standard for review of a felony sentence is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate sentence modification to clear and convincing findings that the record does not support required findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Smith · filed 2020-10-21(G)(2)(a)

As to the R.C. 2929.12(C) factors, the Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified that consecutive sentences can only be challenged under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ... This court may only modify a sentence if we “clearly and convincingly” find that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or that “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b); Gwynne at ¶ 16.

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

State v. Burks · filed 2021-01-29(G)(2)(a)

In 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.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence because the record does not support the trial court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Slife · filed 2021-03-08(G)(2)(b)

Even if we were to agree with Slife that the trial court erroneously weighed the factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, in light of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s holding in Jones,1 we could not vacate or modify Slife’s sentence on that ... basis. ... See State v. Roberts, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2020 CA 0035, 2021-Ohio-90, ¶ 103 (confirming that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to vacate or modify a sentence based on the court’s view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and upholding the defendant’s sentence because the trial court complied with applicable rules and sentencing statutes and the sentence was within the statutory sentencing range).

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

State v. Oliver · filed 2021-03-29(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.”

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

State v. Callaghan · filed 2021-03-31(G)(2)

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. See also R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds specified statutory findings unsupported by the record or the sentence otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Kendall · filed 2021-04-30(G)(2)

We review felony sentences under the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows us to “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence,” or “vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if we clearly and convincingly find 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,” or “(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court's sentencing judgment.

State v. Wells · filed 2021-06-28(G)(2)

The Jones Court did not overrule Marcum but clarified dicta to reflect that “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate review of felony sentences to clear and convincing findings that specified sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law, and it bars independently reweighing sentencing factors.

State v. Brandt · filed 2021-06-30(G)(2)

The Ohio Supreme Court’s recent case of State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, held that although trial courts are required to consider the factors identified in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when imposing felony sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an “appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” ... Simply put, this court’s function is to make certain that the sentence imposed is a product of the consideration of the required statutes and is within the statutory sentencing range.

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

State v. Dangerfield · filed 2021-08-13(G)(2)

The scope of appellate felony sentencing review is set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). As held by this court at ¶11 in State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio-425, “[A]n appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either * * * that the record does not support the sentencing court’s [applicable statutory] findings * * * [or] is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to modify a sentence solely because the record does not support its consideration of the factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12 when the sentence requires no findings specified by section 2953.08(G)(2).

State v. Rohr · filed 2021-08-27(G)(2)

But the Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified that when a sentence does not require the findings specified by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may not vacate or modify it on the basis that the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 are unsupported by the record. ... “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(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to treat a sentence as “otherwise contrary to law” merely because it concludes the record does not support the sentence.

State v. Houk · filed 2021-12-30(G)(2)(b)

Moreover, the Jones majority clarified that the term “otherwise contrary to law” under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not encompass an appellate court’s conclusion that a sentence is not supported by the record. Id. at ¶ 32.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence solely because the record does not support it under the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Carter · filed 2022-02-25(G)(2)(b)

In Jones, the Supreme Court also confirmed that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a mechanism for an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence based upon a finding that the sentence is “contrary to law” because it clearly and convincingly is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence when reviewing how a trial court applied the sentencing principles and factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

"Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C 2929.11 and 2929.12."

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the record does not support the sentence under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Mehl · filed 2022-03-29(G)(2)(b)

“And on review, ‘R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) * * * does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.’ ” Allen, supra, quoting State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its own view that the record does not support it under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Crowthers · filed 2022-06-27(G)(2)(b)

As recently stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) "does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence merely because it finds insufficient record support under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Watson · filed 2021-07-26(G)(2)

And, as already noted, our standard of felony sentencing review, as provided in R.C. 2953.08(G), “does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify ... or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Jones at ¶ 39.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to uphold consecutive-sentence findings unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support them.

State v. Drummond · filed 2024-01-08(G)(2)

Further, we cannot clearly and convincingly conclude that the findings were not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify an appealed sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Wright · filed 2025-05-12(G)(2)(b)

Our review could begin and end with his admission because, as relevant here, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) only gives appellate courts authority to "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed . . . if it clearly and convincingly finds . . . [t]hat the ... sentence is otherwise contrary to law."

Under subsection (G)(2)(b), a sentence within the statutory range is not contrary to law when the court properly imposes post-release control and considers R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, including mitigating factors.

State v. Hicks · filed 2018-12-21(G)(2)(b)

Because the trial court imposed a sentence within the statutorily- permissible range, properly imposed post-release control, and considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12—including any mitigating factors—in imposing Hicks’ sentence, we find that his sentence was not contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

State v. Pustelniak · filed 2020-06-30(G)(2)(b)

If this Court “clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the sentence is contrary to law[,]” we “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.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). ... Pursuant to this Court’s authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), the sentence imposed on count one as a result of the resentencing hearing is vacated.

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

State v. Wood · filed 2020-10-13(G)(2)(b)

Because the trial court concluded, contrary to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g), that imposition of a three-year prison term on the third firearm specification was mandatory, the trial court erred in imposing that sentence without exercising its discretion to do so; accordingly, that portion of appellant's sentence was contrary to law. Pursuant to our authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), we sustain the second assignment of error, vacate appellant's sentence, and remand the case for a resentencing hearing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits relief when a felony sentence is contrary to law; a sentence is not contrary to law on racial-bias grounds when race did not form a basis for it.

State v. Carr · filed 2021-06-14(G)(2)(b)

In light of the foregoing, because the trial court did not violate R.C. 2929.11(C) by using Carr's race and the concept of "white privilege" as a basis for its sentencing decision, the trial court's decision to sentence Carr to prison rather than place Carr on community control was not contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

A sentence is contrary to law under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b) if the trial court fails to consider the mandatory sentencing factors in §§ 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Poole · filed 2022-07-05(G)(2)(b)

Because both R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 require the trial court to consider the factors outlined in those two statutory provisions, State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-2669, 951 N.E.2d 381, ¶ 31, then a trial court’s failure to consider the factors would render the sentence “in violation of statute” and thus “contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing when it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence contrary to law because the trial court failed to consider required youth factors.

State v. Spears · filed 2023-01-23(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. ... We find that the failure to consider the elements of that section of the Code renders Spears sentence clearly and convincingly contrary to law and we remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

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

State v. Williamson · filed 2023-03-23(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) provides we may vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing when a felony sentence is contrary to law.

A felony sentence is contrary to law under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b) if the trial court fails to consider the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Blosser · filed 2024-04-29(G)(2)(b)

If a sentence falls outside the statutory range for the offense, “or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12,” the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing when it finds the sentence clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Stephens · filed 2024-09-30(G)(2)

Because Ms. Stephens’s sentence, therefore, is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, we conclude that it must be vacated, and this matter remanded for resentencing. 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 resentencing.

State v. Litteral · filed 2012-11-19(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.” ... Consequently, we vacate Litteral’s sentence in case no. 9-12-45 (trial court case no. CRB 1102259) and remand the matter for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires appellate courts to review whether a felony sentence is otherwise contrary to law; a sentence within the statutory range is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law when the trial court properly applies postrelease control and states that it considered the applicable sentencing factors.

State v. Reid · filed 2018-12-28(G)(2)(b)

Thus, our focus is limited to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), which requires that we review Reid’s sentence to determine whether it is “otherwise contrary to law.” A sentence is not clearly and convincingly “contrary to law” where the trial court sentences the defendant within the statutorily permissible range, properly applies postrelease control, and expressly states that it considered the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12.

Under § 2953.08(G)(2), a defendant must identify a legal basis for treating the asserted mitigating factors as making a maximum sentence contrary to law.

State v. Mazzola · filed 2019-03-11(G)(2)

Mr. Mazzola, however, has failed to cite any authority demonstrating that such factors render a sentence “contrary to law” under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Martin · filed 2019-05-24(G)(2)(b)

Thus, “clearly and convincingly” in this context means that the record must provide us with “a firm belief or conviction” that appellant’s sentence was contrary to law.

A felony sentence within the statutory range, with proper post-release control and evaluation of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, is not contrary to law under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

State v. Polley · filed 2020-06-05(G)(2)(b)

Because the trial court imposed a sentence within the statutorily-permissible range, properly imposed post-release control, and properly evaluated R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing Polley’s sentence, we find that his sentence was not contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

State v. Conant · filed 2020-08-27(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion”; rather, the appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify the sentence or vacate it and remand for resentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds either: ... (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. ... The trial court’s decision to impose a no-contact order in addition to Conant’s prison term was contrary to law.

Under subsection (G)(2)(b), a felony sentence is not contrary to law when the trial court considers the statutory sentencing factors, properly applies postrelease control, and sentences within the permissible range.

State v. Day · filed 2021-01-25(G)(2)(b)

A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies postrelease control, and sentences appellant within the permissible statutory range. ... Thus, the trial court's sentences are not contrary to law as they relate to the individual convictions for domestic violence and violating a protection order according to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence within the statutory range for legal error to determine whether the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and properly imposed post release control.

State v. Sarge · filed 2021-12-09(G)(2)

Because the sentence is within the permissible statutory range, for the sentence to be contrary to law, this Court must determine whether the trial court considered the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12 and properly imposed post release control.

Under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b), a sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law when the trial court considered the relevant statutory factors and imposed a sentence within the statutory range.

State v. Wodarski · filed 2022-04-29(G)(2)(b)

A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) where the trial court has considered the relevant statutory factors and sentenced the defendant within the statutorily-permissible range.

Under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b), a felony sentence is not contrary to law merely because the sentencing court did not say at the hearing that it considered §§ 2929.11 and 2929.12, when the record shows it did.

State v. Smith · filed 2022-09-09(G)(2)(b)

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. ... Therefore, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the trial court did not consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 such that appellant’s sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires a clear and convincing basis to find a felony sentence contrary to law; an unexplained prosecutorial misstatement at sentencing does not meet that standard.

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

On appeal, Morris has not raised an argument that explains how this one misstatement could render his sentence as being clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Thus, his first argument is without merit.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) provides for appellate review of whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

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

In the instant case, Hannah does not raise any of the R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) factors; therefore, we focus on whether the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) treats a sentence as otherwise contrary to law when it violates a statute or legal regulation.

State v. Farakhan · filed 2024-04-03(G)(2)(b)

“A sentence is ‘otherwise contrary to law’ for purposes of Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) when it is ‘in violation of statute or legal regulations at a given time.’” State v. McKnight, 9th Dist. Medina No. 22CA0027-M, 2023-Ohio1933, ¶ 15, quoting Jones at ¶ 34.

When no specified sentencing findings are challenged, Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to alter or vacate a sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Walker · filed 2024-12-31(G)(2)(b)

And because Walker does not challenge any of the specific findings referenced in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we may alter or vacate his sentence only if we “clearly and convincingly find” that it “is otherwise contrary to law.” See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

State v. Weil · filed 2025-02-24(G)(2)

We review felony sentences under the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2): ... 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. ... Thus, we find that Weil's sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to provide the full notice as required by subpart (B)(2)(c).

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

State v. Frasure · filed 2025-08-18(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 sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). ... The 26-month sentence imposed on Frasure for OVI falls within the statutory range for that offense as does the 14-month sentence imposed for Trespass in a Habitation. ... Accordingly, we find no error in Frasure’s sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence it clearly and convincingly finds contrary to law; a sentence within the statutory range after consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is not contrary to law.

State v. Mixon · filed 2025-08-19(G)(2)

This Court found in Roth, at ¶ 20, “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.” ... The trial court stated in its Entry that it properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 prior to imposing sentence. The sentence the trial court imposed was within the statutory range. The trial court did not issue a sentence that was contrary to law.

Under § 2953.08(G)(2)(b), a sentence is not contrary to law when the trial court considers the statutory sentencing factors, properly imposes post-release control, and sentences within the statutory range.

State v. Chandler · filed 2025-08-28(G)(2)(b)

A sentencing is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Dinka, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶36 (12th Dist.). We have reviewed the record and found that the trial court fulfilled those requirements as it imposed the sentence, so we find no error.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to reverse or modify a felony sentence as otherwise contrary to law if the trial court failed to consider the principles and factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Sawyer · filed 2025-12-31(G)(2)(b)

Sawyer also argues that the trial court failed to consider the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. If the court failed to do so, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits us to reverse or modify a sentence as “otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) treats a sentence imposed without required consecutive-sentencing findings as contrary to law.

State v. Evans · filed 2026-04-06(G)(2)(b)

When a trial court fails to make the required findings, the sentence is "contrary to law" under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar review when the record lacks sufficient clarity to establish a jointly recommended sentence.

State v. Underwood · filed 2019-01-10(D)(1)

Although the state argues that there was an agreed sentence that is not subject to review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), the record lacks sufficient clarity to find a jointly recommended sentence was made in this matter.

An agreed felony sentence remains appealable under § 2953.08(D)(1) if it violates mandatory sentencing requirements and is void.

State v. Pierce · filed 2019-02-06(D)(1)

As in Cupp, the State’s contention about the agreed nature of Appellant’s sentence has no merit. Appellant’s sentences to community control with first obtaining and considering a pre-sentence investigation report renders his community control sentences void. Appellant cannot agree to waive his right to appeal a void sentence.

Section 2953.08(A) authorizes appeals of specified felony sentences but does not provide an avenue to review Russell’s mid-range sentence.

State v. Russell · filed 2019-02-28(A)

Marcum provides the only avenue for appellate review of Russell’s mid-range sentence. None of the express provisions under R.C. 2953.08(A), which statutorily authorize appellate review of certain felony sentences, apply.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a sentence within a jointly recommended range only when the defendant agrees that any prison term within that range is appropriate; a cap on what the state will seek does not suffice.

State v. Brown · filed 2019-04-19(D)(1)

The determining fact, we believe, is whether the defendant and the state agreed that any prison term within the range would be appropriate. Only this type of agreement will suffice to trigger the provisions of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)—a defendant’s agreement to enter into a guilty plea in exchange for the state’s promise to cap the number of years it will seek at sentencing is not an agreed sentence within the meaning of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) unless the defendant also expressly agrees that a prison term up to the cap would be appropriate.

An authorized sentence agreed to by the defendant and prosecution is not reviewable under § 2953.08(D)(1); a defendant’s assent to the stated term at the plea hearing can establish agreement.

State v. Boddie · filed 2019-06-07(D)(1)

We conclude that Boddie agreed to a 3-year sentence. ... At the plea hearing, he agreed that under the terms of the plea agreement the court was going to impose the 3-year sentence. Indeed, he expressly said that that was what he wanted. Boddie concedes that his sentence was authorized by law, that the 3-year prison term was within the statutory range for a third-degree felony and was “not contrary to law.” This agreed-upon sentence is not reviewable.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of an agreed felony sentence that is authorized by law and complies with mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Logan · filed 2019-06-10(D)(1)

Upon review, we find appellant has waived his right to appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Former subsection (D)(1) bars review of mandatory costs in an agreed sentence but allows review of appointed-counsel fees because they are not part of the sentence.

State v. Reese · filed 2019-09-13(D)(1)

Because the imposition of the costs was a mandatory part of the agreed sentence, we hold that we have no jurisdiction to review that part of the sentence under former R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). ... Former R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not preclude us from reviewing this issue because we hold that the fees are not part of the sentence.

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

State v. Welsh · filed 2019-10-07(D)(1)

According to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), if a jointly-recommended sentence imposed by a trial judge is "authorized by law," it is not subject to review on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D) makes an agreed sentence unappealable.

State v. James · filed 2019-10-15(D)

An agreed sentence is not appealable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D).

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

State v. Downing · filed 2019-11-25(D)(1)

If all three conditions are satisfied, the defendant's sentence is not reviewable.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars a defendant from challenging an agreed restitution order on appeal.

State v. Swonger · filed 2019-11-07(D)(1)

We find the restitution order was agreed to by appellant and appellee. It is well-established that R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) therefore bars appellant from challenging restitution on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) limits appeals of agreed sentences, but a sentencing challenge may be considered when the record does not clearly show a jointly recommended sentence.

State v. Montgomery · filed 2019-11-21(D)(1)

We note that there are limitations on a defendant’s right to appeal an agreed sentence. See R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Because the record does not clearly reflect a jointly recommended sentence was imposed, we shall consider the assignment of error.

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

State v. Jackson · filed 2020-01-15(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), “[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” We thus have no jurisdiction to review the sentence unless it was “not authorized by law.”

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

State v. Williams · filed 2019-12-23(D)(1)

Since Williams agreed to the imposition of consecutive cases between these two cases for a total of 36 months in prison, he cannot challenge it now.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal of an agreed sentence that includes nonmandatory consecutive terms, even when the trial court did not make consecutive sentence findings.

State v. Thompson, Jr. · filed 2020-01-24(D)(1)

If, as here, an agreed-upon sentence “includes non-mandatory consecutive sentences and the trial court fails to make the consecutive sentence findings * * *, the sentence nonetheless is ‘authorized by law,’ and therefore is not appealable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).”

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

State v. Thomas · filed 2020-02-27(D)(1)

The sentence imposed comported with all mandatory sentencing provisions and was therefore lawful. ... We cannot review the sentences imposed.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits appellate review when the parties agree only to a sentencing cap and acknowledge the mandatory minimum, because that does not constitute a jointly recommended sentence.

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

In our view, the parties’ agreement to a 30- year cap and mere acknowledgment of the mandatory minimum sentence for the offenses to which Sellars would be pleading, especially where the court explicitly said it was not bound by any agreement, did not amount to a “jointly recommended sentence” within the meaning of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a lawful sentence imposed within a jointly recommended sentencing range, including nonmandatory consecutive terms.

State v. Williams · filed 2020-07-23(D)(1)

This court has also held that “when a trial judge imposes nonmandatory consecutive sentences within a jointly recommended sentencing range, the sentence is ‘authorized by law’ and is not subject to review on appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), regardless of any express agreement to consecutive sentences.” Id. at ¶ 24. Therefore, we find that Williams’s sentence is not subject to review, and is not contrary to law.

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

State v. Ruffin · filed 2020-10-29(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) limits our ability to review an agreed sentence. ... “A sentence that is authorized by law and imposed within a jointly recommended sentencing range is not subject to appellate review.”

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of an authorized sentence within a jointly recommended range, but does not bar review of whether the defendant entered a valid guilty plea.

State v. Alvarez · filed 2020-11-05(D)(1)

There is no dispute that the trial court sentenced Alvarez within the jointly recommended sentencing range. Alvarez does not contend that his sentence is not authorized by law. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) therefore prohibits us from reviewing Alvarez’s sentence. However, Alvarez does not appeal his sentence. Instead, he challenges the validity of his guilty plea. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not prevent us from reviewing whether Alvarez’s plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not preclude appellate review of whether a no-contest or guilty plea was properly taken, even when the sentence was jointly recommended and imposed.

State v. Ray · filed 2020-11-30(D)(1)

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

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a sentence within a jointly agreed cap when the sentencing judge imposes it and it complies with mandatory sentencing provisions.

State v. Burke · filed 2021-02-19(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides, in relevant part, that a sentence “is not subject to [appellate] review * * * if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution * * *, and is imposed by [the] sentencing judge.” ... And, as discussed, an agreed-upon cap qualifies as a jointly-recommended sentence. ... Based upon these conclusions, Burke’s sentence is not subject to appellate review.

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

State v. Stansell · filed 2021-01-28(D)(1)

If all three conditions are met, the defendant may not appeal the sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an authorized sentence adopted from a joint sentencing recommendation.

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

Thus, any determination as to financial sanctions (none of which were imposed), his mandatory fines (which were imposed and waived) and court costs (ordered imposed in the sum of $752.50) are barred from review by this court under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) because the State and Rodriguez had an agreed-upon sentence with a joint-sentencing recommendation that the trial court implicitly adopted (without deviation) and that was “authorized by law”.

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

State v. Brown · filed 2021-07-09(D)(1)

This was an agreed sentence. 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(D)(1) bars appellate review of a restitution order when the parties agreed to it, the sentencing judge imposed it, and it is authorized by law.

State v. Bonish · filed 2021-07-16(D)(1)

Therefore, we hold that appellant is precluded from raising this issue on appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a sentence agreed to by the defendant and prosecution, imposed by the court, and authorized by law.

State v. Dunlap · filed 2021-09-17(D)(1)

Thus, although a sentence that is contrary to law is appealable by a defendant, an agreed-upon sentence may not be appealed where (1) both the defendant and the state agree to the sentence, (2) the trial court imposes the agreed-upon sentence, and (3) the sentence is authorized by law.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of an agreed sentencing range when the judge imposes a sentence authorized by law.

State v. McElroy · filed 2021-11-12(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides: “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” ... We have previously held that an agreed-upon sentencing range qualifies as a jointly recommended sentence. ... Having determined that the sentence was authorized by law, there is no need to go further in the analysis as McElroy’s agreed sentence is not reviewable.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars other appellate challenges to sentences imposed within an agreed sentencing range.

State v. Brown · filed 2021-12-09(D)(1)

Any other challenges to the sentences imposed within the agreed sentencing range are not properly before us. See R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

State v. Charriez · filed 2022-02-18(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides: “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” ... Accordingly, Charriez’s prison sentences are not appealable.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars an appeal challenging restitution agreed to as part of a plea agreement.

State v. Laudermilk · filed 2022-03-07(D)(1)

Because Mr. Laudermilk agreed to pay restitution as part of his plea agreement, he is barred from challenging restitution on appeal. See State v. Swonger, 5th Dist. Licking No. 19-CA-16, 2019-Ohio-4606, ¶ 37 (Since the restitution order was agreed to by the appellant and appellee, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), appellant was barred from challenging restitution on appeal).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a jointly recommended sentence when the defendant’s stipulation to separate animus waives the allied-offenses issue and the sentence is authorized by law.

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

Because Champion stipulated that counts 3 and 4 were committed with separate animus, he expressly waived the allied-offenses issue. Accordingly, the sentences imposed by the trial court were authorized by law and are not subject to appellate review.

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

State v. Bowshier · filed 2022-09-30(D)(1)

We agree that, in this case, Bowshier’s sentence is not reviewable. ... Under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), “[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to [appellate] review if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.”

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

State v. Coffee · filed 2023-02-17(D)(1)

Based on our independent review of the record, we find that the jointly recommended sentence imposed by the trial court in this case was authorized by law. As a result, Coffee’s sentence is not reviewable on appeal and any claim challenging Coffee’s sentence would be wholly frivolous.

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

State v. Watts · filed 2023-04-21(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides that a “sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” ... Based upon the foregoing, Watts’s sentences are not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D) permits an appeal when the trial court imposes a sentence that differs from the jointly recommended sentence, even if the sentences are similar.

State v. Shelley · filed 2023-05-08(D)

If the trial court had imposed the sentence fully as recommended, Shelley would have no right to appeal the imposition of the indeterminate sentence. R.C. 2953.08(D). However, the trial court chose to impose a similar sentence, not the agreed sentence. As a result, Shelley may appeal the sentence.

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

State v. Hampton · filed 2023-06-05(D)(1)

Here, the trial court imposed the agreed upon sentence and the sentence did not exceed the maximum sentence. As such, we find Appellant’s consecutive sentences are not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) precludes review of an agreed sentence but does not bar an appeal challenging the sentence on constitutional grounds.

State v. Shead · filed 2023-10-23(D)(1)

“While R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes review of agreed sentences, the supreme court has held that constitutional challenges are not within the scope of R.C. 2953.08, and therefore, the statute ‘does not preclude an appeal of a sentence on constitutional grounds.’” ... Accordingly, although we are not precluded from reviewing Shead’s constitutional challenges, Shead did not raise these challenges in the trial court, and her arguments on appeal are limited to review for plain error.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars a defendant from appealing a lesser sentence imposed after community control revocation when the defendant agreed to or jointly recommended a lawful sentence.

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

Applying the above authority here, a sentence is also not reviewable on appeal under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) where a defendant agrees to or jointly recommends a sentence and the trial court imposes a lesser sentence.

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

State v. Bowen · filed 2024-08-05(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides: a sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge. ... In this case, both appellant and appellee agreed to the sentence, the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, and the sentence did not exceed the maximum sentence.

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

State v. Peterson · filed 2024-11-12(D)(1)

So, too, the plea was a negotiated plea and sentence. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) limits an appellate court’s ability to review an agreed upon sentence.

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. Colvin · filed 2025-01-31(D)(1)

Because all three conditions in R.C. 2953.08(D) were satisfied, the agreed sentence is not reviewable on appeal.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) makes a jointly recommended sentence unreviewable when the judge imposes it and it is authorized by law.

State v. Schooley · filed 2025-03-19(D)(1)

In the case at bar, the judge imposed the agreed upon sentence and the sentence did not exceed the maximum sentence. As such, we find Schooley’s sentence is not reviewable on appeal.

A jointly recommended sentence imposed by the court is reviewable to determine whether its agreed terms are authorized by law.

State v. Eggleton · filed 2025-04-03(D)(1)

Accordingly, our review is limited to determining whether the sentence was authorized by law with respect to the agreed terms, which includes the imposition of consecutive sentences.

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

State v. E.T. · filed 2025-04-30(D)(1)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) states: “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” Accordingly, we find Appellant’s sentence is not reviewable, and as such, this assigned error lacks merit.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) makes an agreed sentence involving discretionary consecutive terms unreviewable when the sentence is authorized by law, even if the trial court makes no consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Webster · filed 2025-06-20(D)(1)

“An agreed sentence that involves a discretionary decision to impose consecutive sentences is ‘authorized by law’ and unreviewable on appeal even if the trial court fails to make the consecutive-sentence findings.” State v. Morgan, 2018-Ohio-3198, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Sergent, 2016-Ohio-2696, ¶ 29-30. This is the case here.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of an agreed sentence, but a post-release-control term the parties did not agree to remains reviewable.

State v. Sealey · filed 2025-07-09(D)(1)

We therefore find Sealey's sentence for the new crimes committed in violation of his post release control are not reviewable on appeal. ... The imposition of Sealey's post-release control time, however, is reviewable as there was no agreement between the parties as to the imposition of Sealey's post-release control time.

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

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

Moreover, because appellant’s sentence was not only authorized by law, but was an agreed sentence, it is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).