Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

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

State v. Shreve · filed 2025-02-27(G)(2)(a)

We do not find the trial court’s findings imposing consecutive sentences were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

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 the sentence.

State v. Ward · filed 2025-03-13(G)(2)

The statute is written in the negative; that is, an appellate court does not need to clearly and convincingly find that the record supports the findings in order to affirm but instead must clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the findings in order to reverse or modify a sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits review of consecutive sentences, when the required findings are made, to whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support those findings.

State v. King · filed 2025-04-17(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)(a) permits an appellate court to reverse consecutive-sentence findings when it firmly believes the record does not support them.

State v. Combs · filed 2025-05-12(G)(2)(a)

Thus in order to reverse the findings made by the trial court regarding consecutive sentences, an appellate court must have a firm belief that the record does not support the findings that were made by the trial court.

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. Helton · filed 2025-05-30(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.”

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

State v. Owens · filed 2025-06-26(G)(2)(a)

The Ohio Supreme Court has recently clarified the standard of review this Court is to apply in reviewing consecutive sentences: ... And it may modify or vacate the sentence only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that the evidence does not support the trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ... We find Appellant’s past criminal history and the facts of the instant offenses which involved multiple victims support the trial court’s findings consecutive sentences were appropriate in the instant case.

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. Yu · filed 2025-06-26(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: ... Further, we cannot conclude the record does not support the trial court's findings.

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

State v. Seffernick · filed 2025-06-30(G)(2)

When reviewing the imposition of consecutive sentences, “[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) requires an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence to examine the record and permits relief when the record does not support the required consecutive-sentence findings.

State v. Hoke · filed 2025-06-30(G)(2)

“The court hearing an appeal [of a felony sentence] shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... The record supported these findings and were statutorily sufficient to support the imposition of 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. Richmond · filed 2025-07-07(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.”

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

State v. Hughes · filed 2025-07-14(G)(2)(a)

Furthermore, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), appellate court may only “modify or vacate consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 22.

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 trial court’s findings.

State v. Ellis · filed 2025-07-17(G)(2)

Upon review of the sentencing transcript, we are not “left with a firm belief or conviction that the findings are not supported by the evidence,” and the appellant’s fifth assignment of error is overruled.

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 trial court’s required findings.

State v. Morse · filed 2025-08-01(G)(2)(a)

That is, both R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and 2953.08(G)(2) are phrased in the negative, so the trial court must determine that “consecutive sentences ‘are not disproportionate’ to the defendant’s conduct and the danger he poses[,]” and the appellate court “may modify or vacate only when it finds that the record ‘clearly and convincingly’ ‘does not support’ the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate.”

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

State v. Johnson · filed 2025-08-04(G)(2)(a)

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

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. Smith · filed 2025-08-18(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)(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 trial court’s findings.

State v. Gallant · filed 2025-09-08(G)(2)(a)

Furthermore, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), appellate court may only “modify or vacate consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 22. ... Accordingly, after reviewing the information the trial court had available to it at the time of sentencing, specifically the PSI, we do not find that the trial court’s consecutive-sentencing findings were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

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

State v. Thompson · filed 2025-09-17(G)(2)(a)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), an appellate court may review the trial court’s consecutive-sentences findings, and it may “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify” consecutive sentences only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to modify consecutive sentences only when it firmly believes the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Snyder · filed 2025-09-24(G)(2)

Our review of felony criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. ... A reviewing court “must have a firm belief or conviction that the record does not support the trial court’s [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)] findings before it may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify consecutive sentences.”

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 findings.

State v. Hartness · filed 2025-10-02(G)(2)(a)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court “must examine the evidence in the record that supports the trial court’s findings” and “may modify or vacate the sentence only if it ‘clearly and convincingly finds’ that the evidence does not support the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.”

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

State v. Mitchell · filed 2025-10-08(G)(2)(a)

In State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶ ¶ 43-46, Ohio Supreme Court has recently clarified the standard of review this Court is to apply in reviewing consecutive sentences: ... Rather, the appellate court's review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) is limited. It must examine the evidence in the record that supports the trial court's findings. And it may modify or vacate the sentence only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that the evidence does not support the trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

State v. Harris · filed 2025-10-08(G)(2)(a)

Based on the images found on Appellant’s computer and external hard drive, his previous convictions, his previous incarceration, and the fact Appellant was a registered sex offender when he committed the crimes underlying his convictions in this case, we do not clearly and convincingly find that the evidence in the record does not support the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.

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

State v. McAllister · filed 2025-10-22(G)(2)

Thus, we may vacate or modify the appellant’s sentence only if we find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support it. ... Based on our review of the record, we find that the record supports the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) 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 required findings.

State v. Whitney · filed 2025-10-31(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) provides that an appellate court may “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify” consecutive sentences only if it “clearly and convincingly finds” that the record does not support the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive- sentence findings.

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 findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Alexander · filed 2025-11-13(G)(2)

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

State v. Stackhouse · filed 2025-12-08(G)(2)

When reviewing the imposition of consecutive sentences, “[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. ... Consequently, based on our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) 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.

State v. Hayes · filed 2025-12-12(G)(2)(a)

We may "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify" consecutive sentences only if we "clearly and convincingly" find that the record does not support the trial court's findings.

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

State v. Nevels · filed 2025-12-22(G)(2)(a)

“R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes the scope of appellate review for felony sentences.” State v. Morgan, 2024-Ohio-625, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). Under this provision, an “appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence . . . if it clearly and convincingly finds . . . [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” that are required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in order to impose consecutive sentences. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ... Thus, Nevels’s arguments fail to establish that the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to disturb consecutive sentences when the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings.

State v. Anderson · filed 2025-12-23(G)(2)

We review felony sentencing challenges under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... In reviewing the record, we do not determine whether the record supports the trial court’s findings, but only whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support those findings.

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 trial court’s findings.

State v. Peoples · filed 2025-12-26(G)(2)(a)

Our review of a trial court’s consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) is limited. ... Based on these facts, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences is clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) 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.

State v. Strohl · filed 2026-01-27(G)(2)(a)

We may "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify" consecutive sentences only if 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 uphold consecutive-sentence findings unless it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support them.

State v. Clemons · filed 2026-01-29(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.” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5. Here, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings for consecutive sentences, and Clemons concedes as much.

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

State v. Fitchpatrick · filed 2026-02-13(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “where a trial court properly makes the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), 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.” State v. Withrow, 2016-Ohio-2884, ¶ 38 (2d Dist.).

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

State v. Kirkland · filed 2026-02-20(G)(2)(a)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), an appellate court may review the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings, and it may “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify” consecutive sentences only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.

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

State v. Volpi · filed 2026-02-23(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not “direct an appellate court to consider the defendant’s aggregate sentence. Rather, the appellate court must limit its review to the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires appellate review of whether the record supports findings for consecutive sentences and requires modification or vacatur when it does not.

State v. Burch · filed 2026-03-09(G)(2)(a)

Ohio law appellate courts must review the record and determine if the record "clearly and convincingly" supports the trial court's findings. Id. at ¶ 28; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). If the record does not support the trial court's findings, the appellate court must modify or vacate the sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) requires clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the findings for consecutive sentences; an offender’s drug-related criminal history can support a finding that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public.

State v. Brown · filed 2026-03-16(G)(2)(a)

We do not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record does “not support the trial court’s findings” regarding the necessity of consecutive sentences to protect the public from future crime. This finding is supported by Brown’s extensive criminal history, regardless of the fact that this history is primarily comprised of drug-related offenses.

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 trial court’s findings.

State v. Sweet · filed 2026-03-27(G)(2)(a)

An appellate court may modify or vacate the imposition of consecutive sentences, but only when it concludes that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings. ... Having reviewed the record, including the hearing transcripts, sentencing memoranda, and PSI, this court cannot say that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Sweet’s conduct and to the danger that he poses to the public.

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. Kijanski · filed 2026-04-09(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court can overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences if the appellate court, upon review, clearly and convincingly finds that ‘“the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings’” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or the sentence is ‘“otherwise contrary to law.’”

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

State v. Stone · filed 2026-04-15(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reverse or modify a sentence because a trial court arguably abused its discretion. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, at ¶ 45. An appellate court may increase, decrease, or otherwise modify consecutive sentences only if it clearly and convincingly finds the record does not support the trial court's findings or it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence is contrary to law.

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. Jackson · filed 2026-04-16(G)(2)

Thus, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify consecutive sentences only if the record does not “clearly and convincingly” support the trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings.

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

State v. Feagin · filed 2026-04-21(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the ‘appellate-review statute,’ an appellate court may modify or vacate the imposition of consecutive sentences when it ‘clearly and convincingly finds’ that ‘the record does not support the sentencing court's findings.’” ... This Court finds that the record supports the trial court’s findings and that Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law.

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 trial court’s required findings.

State v. Bryant · filed 2026-05-08(G)(2)(a)

The Supreme Court has further recognized that “[t]he appellate-review statute then adds another negative: the appellate court may not reverse simply because it determines that a trial court’s proportionality finding is not supported by the record. Rather, it may modify or vacate only when it finds that the record ‘clearly and convincingly’ ‘does not support’ the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate.” (Emphasis in original.) Id., quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ... In this case, we cannot say that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of Bryant’s conduct.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) directs review of an Ohio sentence ordered consecutive to an out-of-state prison term under (G)(2)(b), asking whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Finfrock · filed 2026-06-15(G)(2)

Accordingly, a R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) analysis of the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) factors is inapplicable to the facts of this case where the issue is imposing a consecutive sentence to an out-of-state prison term. Therefore, our analysis is limited to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) and whether the sentence imposed is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the appellate standard of review for a challenge to consecutive-sentence findings when the defendant raised the sentencing issue before the trial court, even without an objection after sentencing.

State v. Fonseca-Mora · filed 2026-06-23(G)(2)

Defendants have a right to appeal sentences that are contrary to law pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(A)(4). It is logical that they should be reviewed under the standard identified in that same section of the revised code—that is, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). To find otherwise would add an unnecessary requirement on defendants to “object” to a sentence immediately after its imposition and risk an illegal sentence being left in place following an appellate court’s discretionary plain error review.

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

State v. Ross · filed 2013-07-18(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court reviewing consecutive sentences to determine whether it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings.

State v. Boyle · filed 2014-03-28(G)(2)

We do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the ... court’s findings required for consecutive sentences. 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 sentencing court's findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Dixon · filed 2015-12-17(G)(2)

Because the transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), we may not overturn the imposition of ... consecutive sentences unless we find, clearly and convincingly, that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

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

State v. Jones · filed 2017-08-18(G)(2)(a)

With respect to 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.”

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. McKinney · filed 2020-06-30(G)(2)(a)

Where the appellant challenges the trial court’s ... imposition of consecutive sentences, we are required 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) requires an appellate court to modify or vacate consecutive sentences if the record does not clearly and convincingly support any required finding.

State v. Boyd · 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.” ... This record contains evidence to support the court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.

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. Kemp · filed 2024-12-06(G)(2)

Our review in that regard is very deferential. In a plurality decision, State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5, vacating State v. Gwynne, 2022-Ohio-4607, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that “[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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts reviewing consecutive sentences to apply a clear-and-convincing standard to the sentencing court’s findings.

State v. Powell · filed 2022-08-29(G)(2)

However, Powell’s speculation as to the ... effect of registration and post-release control on the likelihood of recidivism does not persuade this court that the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public.

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

State v. Hunter · filed 2023-04-24(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[,]" but 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)." (Emphasis added.)

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

State v. Goff · filed 2023-12-29(G)(2)

Thus, the Court has now clearly affirmed that an appellate court’s application of a de novo standard of review to consecutive-sentence findings “is contrary to the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).” Gwynne V at ¶ 16.

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

State v. Deer · filed 2024-03-01(G)(2)

Contrary to Deer’s assertion, we do not employ a de novo standard of review of the trial court’s sentencing determination. ... Rather, “[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.” Gwynne V at ¶ 5.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires appellate courts to review consecutive-sentence findings under a clear-and-convincing standard.

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

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)’s requirement that appellate courts apply the clear-and-convincing standard on review indicates that the legislature did not intend for appellate courts to defer to a trial court's findings but to act as a second fact-finder in reviewing the trial court's order of consecutive sentences. ... We find the record supports the trial court’s findings imposing consecutive sentences.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars evidentiary review of an aggravated murder sentence, but an appellate court may review whether the sentence is void.

State v. Smith · filed 2019-01-17(D)(3)

Accordingly, while this court is not entitled to review the evidentiary basis supporting Smith’s sentence, we may review the record to determine whether the sentence imposed is void.

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

State v. Conrad · filed 2019-01-18(D)(3)

However, a sentence for aggravated murder is not subject to appellate review.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) prevents the state from appealing an aggravated-murder sentence as a matter of right.

State v. Hamad · filed 2019-03-18(D)(3)

Accordingly, the state is precluded by R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) from appealing, as a matter of right, the trial court’s imposition of sentence for aggravated murder.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of murder and aggravated murder sentences, including life without parole; the court found that this bar had not been shown to violate the Eighth Amendment.

State v. Austin · filed 2019-03-29(D)(3)

As a consequence, we conclude that Appellant has failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) violates the Eighth Amendment.

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

State v. Peters · filed 2019-10-31(D)(3)

Accordingly, under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), we lack statutory authority to review Peters’s $20,000 fine for aggravated murder and overrule his assignment of error to that extent.

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

State v. Campbell · filed 2019-12-06(D)(3)

As noted by the state, however, appellant’s sentence for aggravated murder is not reviewable. ... Relevant here, R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) provides “A sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 of the Revised Code is not subject to review under this section.”

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of the evidentiary basis for an aggravated-murder sentence.

State v. Smith · filed 2020-02-26(D)(3)

We lack statutory authority to review the evidentiary basis supporting Smith’s sentence for aggravated murder. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), “[a] sentence imposed for aggravated murder * * * is not subject to review under this section.”

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of an aggravated murder sentence imposed under Section 2929.03, including a juvenile’s sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

State v. Ramsay · filed 2020-03-31(D)(3)

Section 2953.08(D)(3) has been raised by the State in this case and, upon consideration of the plain language of that section, we conclude that we are without authority to review Mr. Ramsay’s sentence for aggravated murder.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of an aggravated murder sentence, including life imprisonment without parole.

State v. Thomas · filed 2020-09-28(D)(3)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), we are without statutory authority to review appellant’s sentence of life imprisonment without parole for aggravated murder.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude a constitutional appeal of a sentence for murder or aggravated murder.

State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion) · filed 2020-12-22(D)(3)

Accordingly, R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude an appeal of a sentence for aggravated murder or murder that is based on constitutional grounds.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars review of challenges that an aggravated murder sentence lacks record support or is contrary to law.

State v. Stumph · filed 2021-03-12(D)(3)

Stumph’s challenges to his sentence on these grounds are precluded by R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) because these challenges support his argument that the record did not support his sentence and that the sentence was contrary to law, which is a basis of appeal provided for in R.C. 2953.08(D)(4).

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars review under that section of an aggravated murder sentence, but does not bar an appeal under R.C. 2953.02.

State v. Beard · filed 2021-07-12(D)(3)

Thus, those sentenced for aggravated murder under R.C. 2929.03(A)(1), whether or not they are eligible for parole, are foreclosed from appellate review of their sentences under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) but, as noted above, are not foreclosed from appellate review of their sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.02.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) does not bar an appeal of a murder or aggravated-murder sentence on constitutional grounds.

State v. Morris · filed 2021-08-02(D)(3)

Here, Appellant’s challenges to his sentence are based on constitutional grounds. He is therefore not precluded from appealing his sentence pursuant to R.C. §2953.08(D)(3).

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars an appeal under this section challenging an aggravated murder sentence as contrary to law.

State v. Thomas · filed 2021-09-13(D)(3)

We therefore confirm our original conclusion that appellant’s arguments challenging his sentence as “contrary to law” are statutorily barred.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars statutory appellate review of an aggravated-murder sentence challenged on the weighing of sentencing factors rather than constitutional grounds.

State v. Harper · filed 2022-06-10(D)(3)

However, in the instant case, Appellant does not challenge his sentence on constitutional grounds, but rather argues the trial court’s sentence was based on an improper weighing of the statutory factors. As such, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) we are without statutory jurisdiction to review Appellant’s sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars review of aggravated-murder sentences on the grounds provided by § 2953.08, but does not bar appellate review of constitutional challenges to those sentences.

State v. Grevious · filed 2022-12-09(D)(3)

Thus, contrary to Grevious’s general assertions, R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not bar all appellate review of aggravated-murder sentences; rather, it precludes review of such sentences under R.C. 2953.08 on the specific grounds that the statute provides.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) provides no statutory right to appellate review of a sentence for aggravated murder imposed under R.C. 2929.03.

State v. Hamrick · filed 2023-01-17(D)(3)

Since R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) provides that there is no statutory right to review a sentence for aggravated murder, we lack jurisdiction to entertain Angelina's argument related to her life sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) excludes aggravated murder sentences from review under that section but does not bar constitutional challenges to those sentences.

State v. Graley · filed 2023-05-08(D)(3)

Further, while the Anders brief references review of the sentence under R.C. 2953.08, which provides for review of felony sentences on various grounds including that the sentence is “contrary to law,” it does not allow review of a sentence for Aggravated Murder. R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) (“[a] sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 of the Revised Code is not subject to review under this section”); State v. Thomas, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2019-L-085, 2021-Ohio-3175, ¶ 7-8. Thus, we also need not conduct a sentencing review under R.C. 2953.08. We observe that this provision does not prohibit an appeal of a sentence for aggravated murder which is based on constitutional grounds.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars review under subsection (A) of an aggravated-murder sentence based on the sentencing court’s consideration of statutory factors, even when the claim is framed as a constitutional challenge.

State v. Thompson · filed 2023-08-22(D)(3)

This is an appeal of his sentence under R.C. 2953.08(A), which is expressly prohibited by the statute for an aggravated murder sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars review under this section of aggravated murder and murder sentences imposed under sections 2929.02 to 2929.06.

State v. Workman · filed 2024-01-18(D)(3)

Mr. Workman seeks review of his sentence under R.C. 2953.08, but R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) “precludes review of such sentences under R.C. 2953.08 on the specific grounds that the statute provides.” State v. Grevious, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4361, ¶ 24.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of statutory sentencing factor challenges to aggravated murder sentences.

State v. Diamond · filed 2024-01-22(D)(3)

Because R.C.2953.08(D)(3) does not permit review of the statutory factors in an aggravated murder sentence on appeal, this Court affirms.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars review under this section of a sentence imposed for aggravated murder pursuant to R.C. 2929.04.

State v. Gibson · filed 2024-02-21(D)(3)

R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) states that a sentence imposed for aggravated murder pursuant to R.C. 2929.04 is not subject to review under this statute, and this court may not review the sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars statutory review of an aggravated murder sentence when the appeal challenges the weighing of sentencing factors rather than raising constitutional grounds.

State v. Moody · filed 2024-05-08(D)(3)

However, in the instant case, Appellant does not challenge his sentence on constitutional grounds, but rather argues the trial court's sentence was based on an improper weighing of the statutory factors. As such, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) we are without statutory jurisdiction to review Appellant's sentence.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars review under that section of a fine imposed as part of a sentence for aggravated murder.

State v. Radabaugh · filed 2024-12-02(D)(3)

Here, an exception in division (D) of the statute applies to preclude our review of the fine. The fine is part of “[a] sentence imposed for aggravated murder” pursuant to R.C. 2929.02(A), so it “is not subject to review under” R.C. 2953.08.

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

State v. Iverson · filed 2025-02-06(D)(3)

And R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) specifically precludes appellate review of sentences imposed for aggravated murder or murder under R.C. 2929.02 through 2929.06.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars review under that section of an individual murder sentence imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.02 to 2929.06.

State v. McCarley · filed 2018-11-21(D)(3)

Because R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) “clearly precludes review of individual murder sentences imposed ... pursuant to [R.C. 2929.03],” we cannot review the merits of McCarley’s argument.

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

State v. Redmond · filed 2019-02-01(G)(2)

It is well-established that the proper scope of felony sentence review by Ohio appellate courts is set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). As such, an appellate court may decrease, increase, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either that the sentence was based upon relevant statutory findings not supported by the record or it is otherwise contrary to law.

When the trial court was not required to make findings specified in § 2953.08(G)(2), the appellate court considers whether the felony sentence is contrary to law.

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

Because the trial court was not required to make any of the specified findings listed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we need only consider whether Johnson’s 36-month prison sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits review of a felony sentence alleged to be contrary to law because it violates the purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11.

State v. Darby · filed 2020-03-31(G)(2)(b)

Appellant’s arguments suggest the trial court’s judgment was contrary to law in that it violated the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and is therefore subject to our review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08 governs a defendant’s or prosecutor’s right to appeal a criminal sentence and does not limit a trial judge’s authority to impose one.

State v. Meadows · filed 2020-07-28

R.C. 2953.08 is not a sentencing statute. This statute governs the right of a defendant or prosecutor to appeal a criminal sentence. It does not place any limits on a trial judge’s ability to impose sentence, which is governed by other statutes.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits review of whether the record supports sentencing findings to the findings it enumerates.

State v. Sallis · filed 2020-08-03(G)(2)(a)

However, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) provides no authorization for a review of non-enumerated findings made by the trial court.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not authorize appellate review of whether the record supports a trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Toles · filed 2020-08-31(G)(2)(a)

Therefore, in accordance with plain language set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), and as explained by Justice Kennedy in a concurring opinion she authored in State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761, ¶ 38-43, we do not have the statutory authority to review whether the record supports the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence is excessive or unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. D-Bey · filed 2021-01-14(G)(2)

Accordingly, this court cannot review D-Bey’s sentences to determine whether they are “excessive” or otherwise not “supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Id. at ¶ 39.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because the record lacks support for findings under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s recent decision in State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, held that the statutory requirements of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not subject to appeal based upon the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings made under those two sections pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 because R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among the statutory provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Thus, our appellate review is so limited.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence merely because it finds the sentence unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

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)(a) limits appellate review of whether the record supports a felony sentence to the statutes it enumerates.

State v. Harris · filed 2021-02-10(G)(2)(a)

Our review of whether a sentence is supported by the record under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is limited to the specific statutes enumerated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), which include: R.C. 2929.13(B), R.C. 2929.13(D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e), R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and R.C. 2929.20(I).

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

State v. Engler · filed 2021-03-22(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 under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. ... Thus, our review of Mr. Engler’s argument that the trial court erred in weighing the statutory factors of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is extremely limited.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to review a trial court’s factual findings under section 2929.12.

State v. Windon · filed 2021-03-05(G)(2)

Therefore, pursuant to Jones, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit us to review the trial court’s factual findings under R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its own assessment of whether the record supports the sentence under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. DeLuca · filed 2021-03-29(G)

Moreover, 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.” State v. Jones, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-6729, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 39.

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

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

“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,” this court will no longer analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record.

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

State v. Bronson · filed 2021-03-19(G)(2)(a)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), an appellate court may modify or vacate a defendant’s sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law or that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under certain enumerated statutes including R.C. 2929.13(B), R.C. 2929.13(D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e), R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and R.C. 2929.20(I).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently weigh whether a sentence complies with the purposes of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11.

State v. Mockensturm · filed 2021-03-19(G)(2)

The errors that she alleges the trial court committed in its consideration of the R.C. 2929.11 purposes of felony sentencing are not subject to our review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and her first assignment of error is found not well-taken.

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 when reviewing a sentence under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Bothuel · filed 2021-03-19(G)(2)

In State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, the Ohio Supreme Court held that although trial courts are obligated 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.” Id. at ¶ 42. Accordingly, Bothuel’s arguments are without merit and his second assignment of error is found not well-taken.

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

State v. Orzechowski · filed 2021-03-26(G)(2)

Given that neither R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) or (b) permits us to vacate or modify appellant’s sentence if we find the record does not support the trial court’s imposition of a prison term following its consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, we are precluded from conducting the review appellant requests.

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

State v. Chase · filed 2021-03-29(G)(2)(b)

“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.” ... Given the holding in Jones, we cannot review whether Chase’s sentence is supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to review how the trial court applied the sentencing principles in R.C. 2929.11.

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

Furthermore, even if we applied appellant’s arguments to the length of his individual prison sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not grant us authority to consider the trial court’s application of the principles and purposes of sentencing found in R.C. 2929.11.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to reweigh sentencing evidence or vacate a sentence because the record lacks support for findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

An appellate court may not independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding the appropriate sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, nor may it modify or vacate a sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under those statutes.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the evidence when reviewing a sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

“[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.” ... Pursuant to Jones, this Court is unable to review that portion of Appellant’s argument.

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 under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

In accordance with Jones, an appellate court is not permitted to independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 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. Berry · filed 2021-04-05(G)(2)(b)

Under Jones, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) therefore 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, supra, at ¶ 39. Accordingly, Berry has not carried requisite burden on appeal.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires affirmance of a felony sentence that is within the statutory range and is not otherwise contrary to law; an appellate court cannot vacate it merely because the record does not support the trial court’s weighing of sentencing factors.

State v. Contreras · filed 2021-04-19(G)(2)

In sum, the record demonstrates that the prison term imposed by the trial court in this case is within the statutory range and that the trial court considered the statutory factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when it imposed the maximum prison term upon Contreras. Thus, Contreras’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law, and it must therefore be affirmed.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not authorize an appellate court to reassess a sentencing court’s weighing of seriousness factors under the contrary-to-law standard.

State v. Zsigray · filed 2021-04-26(G)(2)(b)

Secondly, we emphasize that consideration of the factors making a crime more serious is left to the discretion of the sentencing court and that this court is not authorized to evaluate whether the court abused its discretion under the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard (thus the Ivkovich court affirmed the sentence as “not contrary to law”).

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

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

Rather, appellate 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) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh sentencing factors under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. York · filed 2021-05-06(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that when reviewing felony sentences, an “appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” ... We therefore cannot do what York is requesting us to do, namely, independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court regarding the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits review of whether the record supports sentencing findings to the statutory provisions it lists.

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

The only provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), however, are R.C. 2929.13(B) and (D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(E) and (C)(4), and R.C. 2929.20(I).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit an appellate court to independently review whether the record supports a trial court’s consideration of the sentencing factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Woodmore · filed 2021-05-14(G)(2)(a)

The application of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) in this situation is governed by the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729. ... Accordingly, we do not consider whether the record supports the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and appellant failed to demonstrate any error by the trial court in sentencing beyond the state’s recommended sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to vacate or modify a felony sentence because it finds the record does not support the sentence under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Johnson · filed 2021-05-24(G)(2)(b)

In Jones, the court held that 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.” ... However, in light of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s holding in Jones, we could not vacate or modify Johnson’s sentence on that basis.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence solely because the defendant claims the trial court improperly considered the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Shepard · filed 2021-05-28(G)(2)

We have found that Jones precludes this court from reviewing a felony sentence based solely upon an appellant’s contention that the trial court did not properly consider the factors identified in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when determining an appropriate sentence.

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

State v. Gessel · filed 2021-05-28(G)(2)

We may increase, modify, or vacate and remand a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences only if we clearly and convincingly find that: (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14, * * *” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” Id., citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to modify a felony sentence merely because the record does not support the trial court’s assessment under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Hall · filed 2021-06-04(G)(2)

Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that an appellate court may not modify or vacate a felony sentence based upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s “findings” under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. ... Under Jones, this ends the inquiry regarding the individual and aggregate sentences.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits appellate review of consecutive sentences to the findings under section 2929.14(C)(4), rather than the aggregate sentence length under section 2929.11.

State v. Floyd · filed 2021-06-07(G)(2)(a)

Rather, appellate review of consecutive sentences is limited to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), as stated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Id. Accordingly, we cannot review the aggregate length of Floyd’s consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.11 and the issue of consecutive sentences is limited to appellate review under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence when the record does not support findings under the sentencing provisions it lists.

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

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on a finding “[t]hat 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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit appellate review of whether the record supports sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Allen · filed 2021-06-21(G)(2)(a)

Thus, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit us to review whether the trial court’s R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 findings are supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to independently reweigh the evidence when reviewing how a sentence reflects the principles and factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Denney · filed 2021-06-23(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit this 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 permit an appellate court to reweigh sentencing factors under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12 or substitute its judgment for the trial court’s.

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

This court is not permitted to conduct a weighing exercise of the aggravating and mitigating factors or substitute its judgment for the trial court in its application of these factors.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit appellate review of a felony sentence based solely on a claim that the trial court improperly weighed the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

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

Accordingly, Jones precludes this court’s review of a felony sentence where—as here—the appellant’s sole contention is that the trial court improperly considered the factors of R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 when fashioning that sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about a sentence’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Carner · filed 2021-07-08(G)(2)

Furthermore, “[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.” Jones at ¶ 42.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Mimes · filed 2021-07-21(G)(2)

Pursuant to Jones, this court is not permitted to independently weigh the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court “concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, at ¶ 42.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its own weighing of sentencing factors or a lack of record support for findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Cook · filed 2021-07-30(G)(2)(b)

Moreover, an appellate court may not independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding the appropriate sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, nor may it modify or vacate a sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under those statutes.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about how a felony sentence reflects R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Tupuola · filed 2021-07-27(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to determine whether the record supports a trial court’s consideration of the factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

And under the Jones’ recent clarification of Marcum, we have no authority to determine whether the trial court’s consideration of the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit appellate review of whether the record supports a maximum sentence when none of its listed sentencing findings applies.

State v. Rodriguez · filed 2021-08-12(G)(2)

Taking our standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G) into account, R.C. 2929.13(B) and (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e), and 2929.20(I) do not apply to the sentence imposed for aggravated vehicular assault. Therefore, we cannot review whether the record supports this maximum sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about a sentence’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

Simply put, there is “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) [that] 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) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s application of sentencing factors.

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

In Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, at ¶ 42, the Ohio Supreme Court held 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.” Therefore, we will not consider whether the trial court erred in how it applied R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits appellate review of whether the record supports sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.13(B), but does not permit review of a finding considered under R.C. 2929.12(B) on that basis.

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

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence either that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under certain enumerated statutory sections, including R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), or that the sentence is contrary to law. ... To the extent this finding was considered under R.C 2929.12(B), pursuant to Jones, this court is precluded from considering this argument. ... However, whether appellant’s conduct was part of an organized criminal activity is also a relevant factor under R.C. 2929.13(B), and Jones does not preclude this court from considering appellant’s argument in that context.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing how a sentence reflects R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Robinson · filed 2021-09-08(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)(b) does not permit an appellate court to treat a sentence as otherwise contrary to law merely because the record does not support it under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Lashley · filed 2021-09-09(G)(2)(b)

Furthermore, the term “otherwise contrary to law” as used in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not encompass an appellate court’s determination that a sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Id. at ¶ 32. Accordingly, Lashley’s contention regarding R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is not supported by the statute or the case law authority.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 or vacate a sentence because the record does not support findings under those statutes.

State v. Griffin · filed 2021-09-10(G)(2)(b)

An appellate court may not independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding the appropriate sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, nor may it modify or vacate a sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under those statutes.

Section 2953.08(G) does not permit an appellate court to review whether the record supports a sentence as a whole under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Morant · filed 2021-09-14(G)

We also note R.C. 2953.08(G) does not allow an appellate court to review whether the record supports the sentence as a whole under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 as this would allow the appellate court to substitute its judgment for the trial court on the selection of a sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Jencson · filed 2021-09-15(G)(2)

A plurality of the Court in Jones noted 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. ... Turning to appellant’s argument, we are foreclosed from weighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for that of the trial court in determining whether the sentence complies with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about whether a maximum sentence or community control is appropriate.

State v. Mathena · filed 2021-09-17(G)(2)(b)

In State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 42, the court held 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.” Therefore, we will not consider in this case whether the facts supported imposing the maximum prison sentence as opposed to community control sanctions.

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

State v. Houston · filed 2021-09-24(G)(2)(b)

Accordingly, “[w]hen reviewing felony sentences that are imposed solely after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, we do not analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit appellate review of whether the record supports a trial court’s findings under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Vargyas · filed 2021-09-24(G)(2)(a)

Applied here, we find that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit us to review whether the trial court’s R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 findings are supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about whether a felony sentence complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Staten · filed 2021-09-24(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize this court to consider appellant’s arguments. In State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42, the Ohio Supreme Court held that 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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits an appellate court’s authority to disturb a felony sentence and permits review of whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Kirks · filed 2021-09-14(G)(2)

This Court is, therefore, without authority to disturb Appellant’s sentence absent a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. We may only determine if the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to review how the trial court applied the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 by reweighing the facts.

State v. Mattoni · filed 2021-09-30(G)(2)

Therefore, consistent with Jones, because R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit us to review the trial court’s application of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, we will not consider whether the facts in this case supported imposing community control sanctions as opposed to the maximum prison sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the record and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s on how a sentence reflects the statutory sentencing factors.

State v. Clark · filed 2021-09-30(G)(2)

This we cannot do, as 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.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 42.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit appellate review of an individual sentence based on factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Andrews · filed 2021-09-30(G)(2)

Therefore, to the extent appellant argues his sentence is not supported by the record based on factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, we find such argument is not part of our review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not authorize an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence because it disagrees with the trial court’s weighing of the factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Toles (Slip Opinion) · filed 2021-10-04(G)(2)(b)

In other words, in Jones we simply observed that R.C. 2953.08, as amended, precludes second-guessing a sentence imposed by a trial court based on its weighing of the considerations in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

State v. Levison · filed 2021-10-07(G)(2)

Accordingly, this court cannot review whether the record supports Levison’s maximum sentence based on the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence merely because it finds the sentence unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

The Ohio Supreme Court recently stated that 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.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 169 N.E.3d 649, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. When reviewing felony sentences that are imposed solely after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, we do not analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.12.

State v. O'Shell · filed 2021-10-12(G)(2)

As such, we lack the authority to modify or vacate O'Shell's sentence based on the argument that the record did not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.12. Instead, we are limited to reviewing whether O'Shell has presented clear and convincing evidence that his sentence is "otherwise contrary to law."