Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

Section 2953.08(D)(1) permits a defendant to appeal discretionary community-control conditions even when the parties agreed to the sentence.

State v. Dejournett · filed 2026-02-25(D)(1)

When an agreed sentence includes community control, however, a defendant can appeal community-control conditions that are imposed in the trial court’s discretion.

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

State v. Rue · filed 2015-09-30(D)

Rue is now prohibited from challenging the legality of his sentence as it was authorized under the law, recommended jointly by the prosecution and the defendant, and duly imposed by ... the trial court.

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

State v. Little · filed 2012-08-20(D)(1)

Under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), "[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to ... review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge." ... Upon review, we find appellant's plea was voluntary and was made subject to a negotiated agreement, and the mandatory two year agreed upon sentence was within the statutory scheme pre- and post-H.B. No. 86 and was not unlawful.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of a murder sentence that is authorized by law, jointly agreed to, understood by the defendant, and imposed as agreed.

State v. Price · filed 2025-02-28(D)(1)

Moreover, we agree with the Shepherd court and State v. Grevious, 2022- Ohio-4361, ¶ 31, that where the sentence for murder under R.C. 2929.02(B)(1) is explicitly authorized by law, was jointly agreed to by the parties and understood by ... appellant prior to imposition of the sentence, and was actually imposed by the trial court, ... it is unreviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of agreed-upon sentences that are authorized by law.

State v. Lett · filed 2016-06-30(D)(1)

The rationale for this holding was that R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not allow for review of agreed-upon sentences that are authorized by law. Underwood, though, held that a sentence that does not comport with the allied offense statute is not authorized by law and is reviewable for plain error.

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. Crawford · filed 2025-03-05(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review "if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge."

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit appellate review of a sentence for abuse of discretion.

State v. Perkins · filed 2019-01-10(G)(2)

But R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) makes clear that our standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. Thus, Perkins cannot prevail on this argument.

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

State v. Nave · filed 2019-01-31(G)(2)

Felony sentences are reviewed under the standard provided in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 16. A reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences only if it clearly and convincingly finds that either (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Simmons · filed 2019-02-07(G)(2)

Where the trial court made the requisite consecutive sentencing findings, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires this court to affirm an order of consecutive service unless we “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires appellate courts to review challenges to consecutive felony sentences for clear and convincing evidence in the record.

State v. Dean · filed 2019-02-08(G)(2)(a)

We review an R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) challenge to a trial court’s felony sentencing determination for clear and convincing evidence in the record.

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

State v. Sheline · filed 2019-02-14(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Kinney · filed 2019-02-21(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate 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. Bradley · filed 2019-04-04(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may vacate the imposition of consecutive sentences where it “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or (2) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) provides that appellate review of consecutive sentences is not for abuse of discretion.

State v. Jones · filed 2019-04-25(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Maple · filed 2019-05-28(G)(2)(a)

On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence, and to modify or vacate the sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Polizzi · filed 2019-06-24(G)(2)(a)

When the trial court properly sets forth the statutory requirements that allow for imposition of consecutive sentences, our review is limited to whether we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.

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

State v. Gunnels · filed 2019-07-11(G)(2)

Where the trial court made the requisite consecutive sentencing findings, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires this court to affirm an order of consecutive service unless we “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) is the exclusive means of appellate review of consecutive sentences, based on whether the record supports the sentencing court’s findings under section 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion) · filed 2019-11-21(G)(2)(a)

Because R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) specifically mentions a sentencing judge’s findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) as falling within a court of appeals’ review, the General Assembly plainly intended R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) to be the exclusive means of appellate review of consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Wiesenborn · filed 2019-11-01(G)(2)(a)

Regarding the second type of challenge, and as pertinent here, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) compels appellate courts to modify or vacate sentences if they find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support any relevant findings under * * * ‘division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.’ ” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08 permits a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Garcia-Toro · filed 2019-12-26

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

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

State v. Henderson · filed 2020-01-03(G)(2)(a)

“Second, the defendant can argue that the record does not support the findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).” Id., citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and State v. Moore, 2014-Ohio-5135, 24 N.E.3d 1197 (8th Dist.). ... Where, as here, the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings are made, “an appellate court may not reverse the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences unless it first clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of consecutive prison terms under a clear and convincing standard.

State v. Anthony · filed 2019-12-31(G)(2)

The standard of review for the imposition of consecutive prison terms is also governed by the clearly and convincingly standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Jackson · filed 2020-03-05(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Vanderpool · filed 2020-04-06(G)(2)

For that reason, we must consider whether the trial court’s findings for imposing consecutive sentencing are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08 permits a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that required findings were omitted, the record does not support them, or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Mincik · filed 2020-04-09

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08, a reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where it clearly and convincingly finds that the trial court failed to make the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows 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. Figuero · filed 2020-05-07(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 a reviewing court to overturn consecutive sentences when it clearly and convincingly finds that the trial court omitted required findings, making the sentence contrary to law.

State v. Collier · filed 2020-05-21(G)(2)

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

On appeal of consecutive sentences, the appellate court reviews the record and may modify or vacate the sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required consecutive sentencing findings.

State v. Maines · filed 2020-06-29(G)(2)(a)

"On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court 'to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence' and to modify or vacate the sentence 'if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)].'" State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 28; State v. Ghazi, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2018-03-023 and CA2018-04-045, 2019-Ohio-339, ¶ 14.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) 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 under section 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Wynn · filed 2020-06-30(G)(2)(a)

“Where the appellant challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences, we are bound to review the issue under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), and must affirm the trial court unless we clearly and convincingly find ‘[t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14.’”

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

State v. Ross · filed 2020-08-17(G)(2)

Appellate courts “‘may vacate or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law’” only when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence.

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

State v. Pence · filed 2020-08-17(G)(2)

We review consecutive sentences imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which states: ... Appellate courts “‘may vacate or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law’” only when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence. ... We therefore conclude the trial court’s findings are supported by the record and therefore we discern no error in its imposition of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires appellate courts to review the record supporting consecutive sentences and to modify or vacate a sentence if they clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Barnes · filed 2020-08-21(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. ... Finally, we conclude the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires an appellate court to affirm consecutive felony sentences unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under section 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Parks · filed 2020-09-21(G)(2)(a)

The imposition of consecutive prison terms for multiple felony offenses is governed by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), one provision listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Thus, we must affirm the imposition of consecutive terms unless we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which states: ... There is no evidence to the contrary, and in the absence of conflicting evidence, Jabrown fails to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are unsupported.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits an appellate court to vacate or modify a consecutive sentence when the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the required findings.

State v. Irwin-Debraux · filed 2020-09-25(G)(2)(a)

We also see no potential issue about whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings, as would be required to vacate or modify Irwin-Debraux’s sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

State v. Duncan · filed 2020-12-17(G)(2)

Where the trial court made the requisite consecutive sentencing findings, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires this court to affirm an order of consecutive service unless we “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) 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 under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Krueger · filed 2020-12-18(G)(2)(a)

Where the appellant challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences, we are bound to review the issue under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), and must affirm the trial court unless we clearly and convincingly find “[t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14.” State v. Taylor, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-19-009, 2020-Ohio-404, ¶ 14.

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

State v. Nelson · filed 2020-12-31(G)(2)

Where the trial court made the requisite consecutive sentencing findings, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires this court to affirm an order of consecutive service unless we “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Travis · filed 2021-01-21(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the clearly and convincingly standard for appellate review of consecutive prison terms.

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

The standard of review for the imposition of consecutive prison terms is governed by the clearly and convincingly standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits appellate review of consecutive sentences to whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s findings under § 2929.14(C)(4).

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

However, the sentence is within the range permitted by law, and our review is limited, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), to whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Crawford · filed 2021-03-15(G)(2)(a)

“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence, and to modify or vacate the sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits review of consecutive sentences to whether the record supports the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Marshall · filed 2021-03-17(G)(2)(a)

Consecutive sentences are reviewed solely under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169, ¶ 16. Therefore, we only consider whether the record supports the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits review of consecutive-sentence findings to whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support them.

State v. Aquilar · filed 2021-03-18(G)(2)

As directed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “the appellate court’s standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion,” let alone a de novo review of whether consecutive sentences were warranted in the first place. Rather, we are confined to determining whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings.

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

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

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of consecutive prison terms under a clear and convincing standard.

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

The standard of review for the imposition of consecutive prison terms is governed by the clearly and convincingly standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

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

Under the circumstances, we cannot agree that the record “clearly and convincingly” does not support the trial court’s findings.

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

State v. Tipton · filed 2021-04-08(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing grounds to disturb a consecutive sentence on appeal.

State v. Williams · filed 2021-04-12(G)(2)

We review consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G) and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). ... We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record fails to support the trial court’s findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits appellate review of a trial court’s findings supporting consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Hiles · filed 2021-05-10(G)(2)(a)

Hiles’s second argument is proper as R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) expressly allows for appellate review of a trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Percy · filed 2021-06-03(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs appellate courts to review the record and modify or vacate a consecutive sentence when they clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the required sentencing findings.

State v. Roll · filed 2021-06-14(G)(2)(a)

“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence, and to modify or vacate the sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds 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 modify or vacate consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentencing findings lack record support or that the sentence is contrary to law.

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

We review consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G) and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). ... However, based upon the record, we cannot say that we clearly and convincingly find that the trial court’s order for consecutive service was not supported by the R.C. 2929.14(C) factors or that it was contrary to law.

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

State v. Jordan · filed 2021-07-09(G)(2)(a)

For purposes of the trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences, the standard is whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires the appellate court to clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s sentencing findings; it does not require the trial court to have clear and convincing evidence for those findings.

State v. Stevens · filed 2021-08-02(G)(2)

As the Eighth District has aptly noted, the “clear and convincing standard” used in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is written in the negative. ... It does not say that the trial court must have clear and convincing evidence to support its findings. ... Instead, it is the court of appeals that must clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits appellate review of consecutive sentences to challenges to the trial court’s findings under section 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Adams · filed 2021-08-20(G)(2)(a)

Therefore, an appellate court’s review of consecutive sentences is limited to challenges of a trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), as described in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) places the burden on an appellant challenging consecutive sentences to identify clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s required findings.

State v. Kiefer · filed 2021-09-03(G)(2)

However, R.C. 2953.08(G) requires Kiefer to identify clear and convincing evidence in the record that the trial court’s findings are not supported by the record. Thus, the burden is on Kiefer to identify clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to overturn consecutive 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. Reyes · filed 2021-10-07(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing findings before reversing consecutive sentences on that ground.

State v. Gibson · filed 2021-10-08(G)(2)

In order to reverse the imposition of consecutive sentences, we must clearly and convincingly find that the record did not support the court’s findings.

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

State v. Christian · filed 2021-10-21(G)(2)(a)

“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and [must] modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings * * *.’” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28. ... Christian has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive sentences in the weapons prosecution and the domestic violence prosecution.

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

State v. Cofield · filed 2021-10-22(G)(2)(a)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) supplies the sole standard for reviewing consecutive sentences.

State v. Svoboda · filed 2021-12-01(G)(2)(a)

Consecutive sentences are reviewed solely under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits appellate review of consecutive sentences to the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Lipkins · filed 2021-12-10(G)(2)(a)

Our review of consecutive sentences is limited to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), as stated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits appellate review of consecutive sentences to whether the record supports the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Cannon · filed 2021-12-29(G)(2)(a)

Our review of consecutive sentences is limited to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), as stated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

State v. Smith · filed 2022-01-31(G)(2)

The standard of review for the imposition of consecutive prison terms is governed by 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.” ... Accordingly, we clearly and convincingly find that Mr. Smith’s consecutive sentences are contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to modify or vacate consecutive felony sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the relevant statutory findings.

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

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which guides our review of consecutive felony sentences, “compels appellate courts to modify or vacate sentences if they find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support any relevant findings under * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14[.]” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016- Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22; see also State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020- Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 28; State v. Roberts, 2017-Ohio-9014, 101 N.E.3d 1067, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.) (“[i]f the court made the required findings in order to impose consecutive sentences, we must affirm those sentences unless we ‘clearly and convincingly’ find that the record does not support the court’s findings,” quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)). ... Upon review, we find that the Fields has not demonstrated that the record does not support the trial court’s findings and decision to impose consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs appellate courts to modify or vacate consecutive felony sentences when clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Ennis · filed 2022-03-10(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which guides our review of consecutive felony sentences, “compels appellate courts to modify or vacate sentences if they find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support any relevant findings under * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14[.]” ... In light of the information that was presented to the trial court, we cannot say that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public.

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

State v. Fleming · filed 2022-03-11(G)

This court reviews the trial court’s consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2953.08(G), and this court may modify or vacate the sentence only if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to find clearly and convincingly that the record does not support the consecutive-sentence findings before reversing or modifying a sentence on that basis.

State v. Townsend · filed 2022-03-10(G)(2)

Therefore, we cannot say that because Townsend was already serving 21 years to life in prison for the sexual assault of Jane Doe III the record clearly and convincingly does not support the court’s findings and decision to impose consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Furmage · filed 2022-05-02(G)(2)(a)

We review consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G) and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). ... We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the consecutive sentencing factors.

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

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

Where the trial court made the requisite consecutive-sentencing findings, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires this court to affirm an order of consecutive service unless we “clearly and convincingly” find that the record does not support the court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences.

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

State v. Talley · filed 2022-05-16(G)(2)

In the present case, we cannot say that the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s finding with respect to proportionality.

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. Liddy · filed 2022-05-19(G)(2)

A reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences, under R.C. 2953.08, where 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), or the sentence is ‘otherwise contrary to law.’”

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

State v. McGee · filed 2022-06-16

We may overturn consecutive sentences only if we clearly and convincingly find that “(1) ‘the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under * * * [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)],’ or (2) ‘the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.’” State v. Rapier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108583, 2020-Ohio-1611, ¶ 7, quoting R.C. 2953.08.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires an appellant challenging consecutive-sentence findings to identify clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support them.

State v. Gipson · filed 2022-06-17(G)(2)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G), the burden is on Gipson to identify clear and convincing evidence in the record that the court’s finding is not supported by the record.

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

State v. Colon · filed 2022-06-23(G)(2)

When a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences is challenged on appeal, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) 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” either “(a) [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under * * * [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]” or “(b) [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits a challenge to consecutive sentences when the record clearly and convincingly does not support the required findings.

State v. Dixon · filed 2022-07-28(G)(2)(a)

Second, the defendant can argue that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ... Appellant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court’s findings are not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) governs appellate review of a challenge to consecutive sentences imposed under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Kenney · filed 2022-08-26(G)(2)(a)

Because Kenney’s challenge concerns the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences—imposed under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)—R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) applies.

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

State v. Abdullah · filed 2022-11-07(G)(2)(a)

“The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing * * * if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or * * * [t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b). ... The conduct of raping her, threatening to kill her, and repeatedly hitting her while disallowing her to leave the hotel room was serious and we cannot clearly and convincingly determine this finding was unsupported by the record.

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

State v. Mathis · filed 2022-11-10(G)(2)(a)

Because Mathis challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) applies. To modify or vacate consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we must clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Shiveley · filed 2022-11-14(G)(2)(a)

Accordingly, this court can only modify the trial court's sentence if we were to clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court's findings made according to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Victor · filed 2022-11-21(G)(2)

With respect to consecutive sentences, a reviewing court may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing “if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14.” Id.

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

State v. Taylor · filed 2022-12-08(G)(2)

“Where the trial court made the requisite consecutive sentencing findings, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires this court to affirm an order of consecutive service unless we ‘clearly and convincingly’ find that the record does not support the court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences.” ... We find that the findings made by the trial court are supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs appellate review of consecutive sentences to whether the record supports the trial court’s required findings, rather than the length of the aggregate sentence.

State v. Haynes · filed 2022-12-12(G)(2)(a)

The relevant inquiry under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) is not whether the record supports Mr. Haynes’ aggregate prison sentence but whether there is evidence in the record supporting the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings.

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

State v. Runion · filed 2023-01-30(G)(2)

“[T]he proper scope of felony sentence review by Ohio appellate courts is set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).” ... We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Saxon · filed 2023-02-02(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Richey · filed 2023-02-06(G)(2)(a)

Therefore, upon a de novo review of the record, this court may reverse or modify consecutive sentences—including the number of consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court—only if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court's consecutive sentence findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate review of consecutive sentences to whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the required findings.

State v. Brabson · filed 2023-02-16(G)(2)

Thus, statutory appellate sentencing review, as is pertinent to this appeal, is limited to reviewing the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings underlying the consecutive service of the aggravated robbery sentence and whether Brabson has demonstrated that the record does not clearly and convincingly support those findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Worley · filed 2023-02-23(G)(2)(a)

Second, the defendant can argue that the record “clearly and convincingly” does not support the court’s findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); Reindl at ¶ 13. ... After our review, we do not have the firm conviction or belief that the record does not support the trial court’s finding in light of the consecutive terms imposed and the resulting aggregate sentence. We find no error, let alone plain error, in the sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of consecutive sentences under a clear-and-convincing standard.

State v. Aitken · filed 2023-03-10(G)(2)

The standard of review for the imposition of consecutive sentences is governed by the clearly and convincingly standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to modify or vacate consecutive sentences if the record does not clearly and convincingly support even one required finding.

State v. Brado · filed 2023-03-30(G)(2)

The point here is that if even one of the consecutive-sentence findings is found not to be supported by the record under the clear-and-convincing standard provided by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), then the trial court's order of consecutive sentences must be either modified or vacated by the appellate court.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to use a clear-and-convincing standard when reviewing whether the record supports consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Palmer · filed 2023-04-14(G)(2)

We cannot conclude that the court’s finding pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c), namely that Palmer’s history of criminal conduct demonstrated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime by him, was not supported by the record under the clear-and-convincing standard provided by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Taylor · filed 2023-05-26(G)(2)(a)

“R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) compels appellate courts to modify or vacate sentences if they find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support any relevant findings under * * * ‘division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.’ ”

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

State v. Settlemire · filed 2023-06-05(G)(2)(a)

In the instant case, our de novo review of Settlemire’s sentences reflects that the trial court made the requisite consecutive-sentence findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporated those findings into the judgment entry of sentencing. We also cannot conclude that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings as they pertain to the sentencing order on each count, particularly the finding with which Settlemire takes issue on appeal, being that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of Settlemire’s conduct in the case and that his history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by him.

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

State v. Wilson · filed 2023-06-08(G)(2)(a)

As the Supreme Court of Ohio has explained, when reviewing 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). ... Based upon our thorough review of the record, we clearly and convincingly find that the record supports the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct and the danger he poses to the public.

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

State v. Walker · filed 2023-06-12(G)(2)

This court reviews consecutive felony sentences pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... We do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that Walker’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from his future crime.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) allows an appellant to challenge consecutive sentences when the record clearly and convincingly does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Lautanen · filed 2023-06-12(G)(2)(a)

Second, the appellant may argue that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the findings the sentencing court made to justify consecutive sentences. Lewis at ¶ 7; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate review of whether the record clearly and convincingly supports the findings for consecutive sentences and permits modification or vacation when a finding lacks support.

State v. Karlowicz · filed 2023-06-22(G)(2)

If after reviewing the record, the appellate court finds that “even one of the consecutive-sentence findings is found not to be supported by the record under the clear-and-convincing standard provided by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2),” the Gwynne Court directs us to either modify or vacate the trial court’s order of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) governs appellate review of a challenge to consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Grubb · filed 2023-08-18(G)(2)(a)

Grubb claims error in the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), therefore, his challenge falls under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

State v. Hoyle · filed 2023-09-11(G)(2)

To reverse the consecutive sentencing findings, this court must “‘clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the court’s findings.’”

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

State v. Bukovac · filed 2023-09-18(G)(2)

Appellate review of consecutive sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which provides: ... The appellate court’s standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

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

State v. Smith · filed 2023-11-02(G)(2)

“Where the trial court made the requisite consecutive sentencing findings, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires this court to affirm an order of consecutive service unless we ‘clearly and convincingly’ find that the record does not support the court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences.” Id. at ¶ 11. ... On this record, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to uphold consecutive sentences when it cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record fails to support the trial court’s required findings.

State v. Hoffman · filed 2023-11-02(G)(2)

Having found the trial court made the requisite findings, our review of the record is limited to determine whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences. R.C. 2953.08(G). ... Under these circumstances, we are not convinced the record does not support the findings made by the trial court.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits a defendant to challenge consecutive sentences when the trial court omitted required findings or the record clearly and convincingly does not support those findings.

State v. Trujillo · filed 2023-11-09(G)(2)

A defendant can challenge consecutive sentences on appeal in two ways. First, the defendant can argue that consecutive sentences are contrary to law because the court failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b); State v. Reindl, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 109806, 109807, and 109808, 2021-Ohio-2586, ¶ 13; State v. Nia, 2014-Ohio-2527, 15 N.E.3d 892, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). Second, the defendant can argue that the record “clearly and convincingly” does not support the court’s findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); Reindl at id.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reverse or modify consecutive sentences based on the sentencing principles in R.C. 2929.11 or the factors in R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Grant · filed 2023-12-14(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reverse or modify a defendant’s consecutive sentences using the principles and purposes of felony sentencing as set forth in R.C. 2929.11(A) and (B) and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

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

State v. Jensen · filed 2023-12-18(G)(2)(a)-(b)

In reviewing consecutive sentence arguments, the appellate court's standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion; rather, the question is whether the appellate court “clearly and convincingly finds” (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. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)-(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) 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. Stiver · filed 2024-01-11(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “the appellate court can reverse or modify the trial court’s order of consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the findings.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) allows an appellate court to challenge consecutive-sentence findings when the record clearly and convincingly does not support them.

State v. Lewis · filed 2024-01-11(G)(2)(a)

Consecutive sentences may be challenged by arguing (1) the sentence is contrary to law due to the trial court’s failure to make the requisite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requirements pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b); or (2) the record “‘clearly and convincingly’” does not support the court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ... After conducting a thorough review of the record, this court does not find that the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) allows a defendant to challenge consecutive sentences when the record clearly and convincingly does not support the required findings.

State v. Johnson · filed 2024-01-11(G)(2)(a)

Second, the defendant can argue that the record “clearly and convincingly” does not support the court’s findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Elkins · filed 2024-01-11(G)(2)

As stated, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) guides our review of consecutive-felony sentences and “compels appellate courts to modify or vacate sentences if they find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support any relevant findings under * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14[.]” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22. ... Under these circumstances, we find that Elkins’s argument that his sentence is excessive when the court ran two prison sentences consecutively for a total term of 27 months of incarceration is not well taken.

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

State v. Vokas · filed 2024-01-18(G)(2)

Under Ohio law, “[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, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5. Here, based on this court’s review, we cannot clearly and convincingly find the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

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

State v. Pearson · filed 2024-02-01(G)(2)

If the appellate court is unable to clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings, the consecutive sentences must be affirmed.

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

State v. Watson · filed 2024-02-12(G)(2)(a)

In other words, “‘if the court has properly made the required findings in order to impose consecutive sentences, we must affirm those sentences unless we “clearly and convincingly” find “[t]hat the record does not support the court's findings[.]”’” State v. Haynes, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2022-L-009, 2022-Ohio-4464, ¶ 48, quoting State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891, 992 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits an appellate court to reverse or modify a sentence when the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Morgan · filed 2024-02-20(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) expressly authorizes an appellate court to reverse or modify a sentence if the findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits review of consecutive-sentence findings to whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support them.

State v. Percy · filed 2024-02-22(G)(2)(a)

If the findings are made, our review of consecutive sentences is limited to whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

State v. Hudson · filed 2024-03-08(G)(2)

“The 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.” ... Thus, Hudson’s consecutive sentences will be upheld unless we find the requisite findings were clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

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. Banville · filed 2024-03-14(G)(2)

“The 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, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5. ... After thoroughly reviewing the record before us, we do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings unless it is firmly convinced the record does not support them.

State v. Antonacci · filed 2024-03-14(G)(2)

Thus, the Ohio Supreme Court in 2023 Gwynne specifically rejected the holding in 2022 Gwynne with respect to conducting a de novo review. Id. In short, we should review the sentence imposed by the trial court and only reverse if the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to uphold consecutive-sentence findings unless they are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Gilmer · filed 2024-03-28(G)(2)

“[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.” ... Having reviewed the transcript in its entirety, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) allows a defendant to challenge consecutive sentences by arguing that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the required findings.

State v. James · filed 2024-04-18(G)(2)(a)

Second, the defendant can argue that the record “clearly and convincingly” does not support the court’s findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); Reindl at id.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellant challenging consecutive sentences to show that the trial court’s findings lack clear and convincing support in the record.

State v. Jones · filed 2024-04-19(G)(2)

To merit reversal on appeal, as governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), Jones must demonstrate that the trial court’s findings are not clearly and convincingly supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires an appellant challenging consecutive sentences to show that the sentencing court’s findings are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Spires · filed 2024-04-29(G)(2)(a)

Spires has not demonstrated that the court's consecutive sentence findings were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record, which he must demonstrate for us to reverse his sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to consecutive-sentence findings and affirm unless they are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Williams · filed 2024-05-03(G)(2)

His argument depends on this Court’s doing a de novo review of the record, something the legislature and Ohio Supreme Court have clearly stated we cannot do. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); Gwynne at ¶ 5. All we are given the authority to do is to make sure there was something in the record that supported the trial court’s findings. As long as the findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported, we must affirm.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to consecutive-sentence findings unless it has a firm conviction that the record does not support them.

State v. Dawson · filed 2024-05-10(G)(2)

Sentencing challenges are reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Unless an appellate court has “a firm belief or conviction that the record does not support the trial court’s findings,” the appellate court must affirm a trial court’s judgment imposing consecutive sentences. ... Given Dawson’s history of criminal conduct—both charged and uncharged—in the short time he has been an adult, the trial court’s findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

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

State v. Napier · filed 2024-05-13(G)(2)(a)

We do not find that those findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

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. Shephard · filed 2024-05-23(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 contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to uphold consecutive-sentence findings unless they are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Cuffie · filed 2024-06-07(G)(2)

“The plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to the 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.” ... Based upon the record before us, we cannot conclude that the court’s findings as to consecutive sentences were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record, and Cuffie’s consecutive sentence is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires an appellate court to uphold consecutive-sentence findings unless they are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Willis · filed 2024-06-10(G)(2)(a)

At any rate, our standard of review requires us to uphold the trial court's consecutive sentence findings unless those findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

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

State v. Sparks · filed 2024-06-20(G)(2)(a)

After a thorough review of the record, we are not left with the “firm belief or conviction” that the record does not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); Cross, 161 Ohio St. 469, at paragraph three of the syllabus.

Section 2953.08(G) limits review of consecutive sentences, when the trial court has made the required findings, to whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support them.

State v. Lykes · filed 2024-06-20(G)

Where the trial court makes the appropriate findings to impose consecutive sentences, “our review of the record is limited to determine whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences.” State v. Hoffman, 2023-Ohio-3977, ¶ 35 (8th Dist.), citing R.C. 2953.08(G). ... As to the consecutive sentences for murder and having weapons while under disability, we cannot say the record does not clearly and convincingly support the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to affirm consecutive-sentence findings unless it clearly and convincingly finds them unsupported by the record.

State v. Simpson · filed 2024-06-21(G)(2)

Our authority is limited to detecting something in the record that supported the trial court’s findings. As long as the findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported, we must affirm.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to uphold a trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings unless they are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Raines · filed 2024-06-24(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, 173 Ohio St.3d 525, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5. ... Upon reviewing the entire record before us, we do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings with regard to consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellant challenging consecutive-sentence findings to establish that the record clearly and convincingly does not support them.

State v. McElrath · filed 2024-06-28(G)(2)

As an initial matter, the issue is not whether the record clearly and convincingly supports the trial court’s findings. Rather, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) obligates McElrath to establish that the record clearly and convincingly does not support them.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits a defendant to challenge consecutive sentences by showing clearly and convincingly that the record does not support the trial court’s required findings.

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

Second, the defendant can argue that the record “clearly and convincingly” does not support the trial court’s findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); Reindl at ¶ 13.

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

State v. Miller · filed 2024-07-05(G)(2)(a)

As the Supreme Court of Ohio has explained, when reviewing 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). ... We cannot clearly and convincingly conclude that the record does not support the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.

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

State v. Goss · filed 2024-07-12(G)(2)(a)

“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings’ ” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). ... We have reviewed the record, including the trial court’s findings underlying the sentence, and we cannot conclude that the record does not support the trial court’s sentencing under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify consecutive sentences only when it has a firm belief or conviction that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Roberts · filed 2024-08-05(G)(2)

The Ohio Supreme Court has 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.” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 15 (plurality). The trial court made the appropriate considerations, and we cannot say the record creates a firm belief or conviction that the trial court’s findings are not so supported.

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

State v. Jones · filed 2024-08-29(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to uphold consecutive-sentence findings unless they are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Harris · filed 2024-08-30(G)(2)

“The 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; State v. Norris, 2023-Ohio-4057, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). ... Thus, the trial court made findings which supported the imposition of consecutive sentences, and the sentences must be upheld unless we find that those findings were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

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

State v. Nashe · filed 2024-09-05(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of consecutive sentences and permits reversal when the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s findings.

State v. Rivers · filed 2024-10-04(G)(2)

In short, we ... should review the sentence imposed by the trial court and only reverse if the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits review of consecutive sentences to whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s findings under section 2929.14(C)(4).

State v. Stodgel · filed 2024-10-23(G)(2)(a)

Further, our review is limited, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), to whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G) permits an appellate court to modify consecutive sentences only when the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings.

State v. Campbell · filed 2024-10-24(G)

In cases in which the trial court makes the appropriate findings to impose consecutive sentences, as it did in this case, “our review of the record is limited to determine whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences.” State v. Hoffman, 2023-Ohio-3977, ¶ 35 (8th Dist.), citing R.C. 2953.08(G); State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 15 (plurality opinion) (“[A]n 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.”).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to uphold consecutive-sentence findings unless they are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

State v. Dupler · filed 2024-12-06(G)(2)

"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."

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

State v. Blanton · filed 2025-01-24(G)(2)

An appellate court can increase, decrease, or otherwise modify consecutive sentences only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s findings or it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Cruz · filed 2025-02-05(G)(2)(a)

The imposition of consecutive prison terms for multiple felony offenses is governed by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which is one of the provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Thus, we must affirm the imposition of consecutive terms unless we clearly and convincingly find the record does not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which states: ... In light of the foregoing, we find Cruz’s final subargument lacks merit.

Section 2953.08(G) limits review of consecutive sentences to whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s findings.

State v. Sumlin · filed 2025-02-20(G)

In cases in which the trial court makes the appropriate findings to impose consecutive sentences, “our review of the record is limited to determine whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences.” State v. Hoffman, 2023-Ohio-3977, ¶ 35 (8th Dist.), citing R.C. 2953.08(G); State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 15.

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

State v. Parsons · filed 2025-02-21(G)(2)

"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." ... Upon review, we find trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences is supported by the record and is neither contrary to law, nor based on improper considerations.