Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize appellate review when the sole claim is that the trial court improperly considered the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

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

Because R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize this court to consider appellant’s argument, we find appellant’s sole assignment of error not well-taken.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not authorize an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence based on whether the record supports it under section 2929.12.

State v. Neff · filed 2021-10-22(G)(2)(b)

Although “contrary to law” is an undefined term, the Ohio Supreme Court guides us 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, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39. ... We lack the authority to grant the relief appellant seeks by reviewing if the record supports the sentence under R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 or modify a sentence because it disagrees with the trial court’s weighing of those factors.

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

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. ... Although Homa argues that the record does not support the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and that the factors should have been weighed differently, Jones precludes this court from modifying or vacating a sentence on these bases.

Section 2953.08(G)'s standard of review does not apply to a challenge based solely on the trial court's weighing of R.C. 2929.12 sentencing factors.

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

Appellant cites R.C. 2953.08(G) as our standard of review for felony sentencing matters. However, that statute only applies to challenges to sentences issued under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (3), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), and R.C. 2929.20(I), and appellant does not challenge her sentence in reference to any of these statutes.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not authorize an appellate court to independently review whether the record supports a sentence under R.C. 2929.11(B).

State v. Moore · filed 2021-11-10(G)(2)(b)

We lack the authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) to grant the relief appellant seeks by independently reviewing if the record supports his sentence under R.C. 2929.11(B).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the evidence behind a trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

Under Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, at ¶ 42, we are not permitted to independently weigh the evidence behind the court’s findings.

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

State v. Johnston · filed 2021-12-10(G)(2)(b)

Importantly, however, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to 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, or modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under those statutes.

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

State v. Vancleve · filed 2021-12-17(G)(2)(b)

Importantly, however, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to 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, or modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under those statutes.

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

State v. Garcia · filed 2021-12-20(G)(2)(b)

The appellate review of felony sentences established by 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.”

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 felony sentencing principles and factors.

State v. Grannon · filed 2022-01-27(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 set aside a sentence because the record does not support the trial court’s weighing of the factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

Moreover, the term “otherwise contrary to law” in 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. ... Pursuant to Jones, supra, we are not authorized to review Mr. Mizicko’s sentences in the manner he requests.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh whether a felony sentence is supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; the court determines whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Jinks · filed 2022-02-02(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, we shall no longer analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record. We simply must determine whether those sentences are contrary to law.”

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

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

Consequently, appellate courts cannot review a felony sentence when “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)(b) does not permit an appellate court to independently review whether a felony sentence appropriately reflects the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Whitehead · filed 2022-02-11(G)(2)(b)

As Jones indicates, however, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow this court to independently review the record to determine whether the trial court imposed an appropriate sentence in light of the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh whether a sentence complies with the principles and factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Whitman · filed 2021-12-22(G)(2)

In light of Jones, and consistent with our decisions applying it, we find that we cannot consider appellant’s contention that the trial court improperly applied the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12 or that his prison sentence is ... inconsistent with the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11.

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

State v. Allen · filed 2022-02-18(G)(2)(b)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits review of a felony sentence imposed after consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 to whether the sentence is contrary to law.

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

We have interpreted this to mean that “when reviewing felony sentences that are imposed solely after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, we shall no longer analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record. We simply must determine whether those sentences are contrary to law.”

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

State v. Montez · filed 2022-03-04(G)(2)(b)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits review of a felony sentence imposed after consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 to whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Patterson · filed 2022-03-17(G)(2)

Rather, when reviewing a felony sentence that is imposed after a consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, our review is limited to the question of whether the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

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

R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among the statutory provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), and thus, this court cannot rely on R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 as a basis to modify or vacate a sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate review of felony sentences to unsupported sentencing findings or sentences that are otherwise contrary to law.

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

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides, in part, that when reviewing felony sentences, the appellate court’s standard is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion; rather, if this court “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under” R.C. Chapter 2929; or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then we may conclude that the court erred in sentencing. ... This assertion does not fall under our permitted review of appellant’s sentence.

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 sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Moore · filed 2022-03-24(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)(b) does not allow an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence as otherwise contrary to law merely because it finds the record does not support the sentence.

State v. Faiola · filed 2022-03-31(G)(2)(b)

The “otherwise contrary to law” language in the sentencing review statute does not allow the appellate court to reverse by finding “the record does not support the sentence.”

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

State v. McMillen · filed 2022-04-07(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) limits appellate review to whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law when none of its specified findings were required.

State v. Heinzen · filed 2022-04-22(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 Heinzen’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Olsen · filed 2022-04-28(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit the appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on a lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits appellate review of sentencing findings to those made under the statutes it lists.

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

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not authorize an appellate court to review all the trial court's findings made during sentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the record to decide which sentence best complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Brodt · filed 2022-05-04(G)(2)

Based on Jones, we conclude that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit us to conduct this type of review.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reassess whether the record supports a felony sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. West · filed 2022-05-13(G)(2)

Pursuant to Jones, and as West acknowledges, analysis of whether West’s sentence was clearly and convincingly not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 is precluded.

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

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

Vieira’s arguments center around the lower court’s weighing of the factors and whether it properly assigned weight to various factors such as the parties’ relationship and his remorse. This court is prohibited under Jones from weighing the evidence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence upon a clear and convincing finding that the record lacks support for specified findings or that the sentence is contrary to law; seriousness and recidivism findings are outside that review.

State v. Spaulding · filed 2022-05-27(G)(2)

When reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standards found in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Under that statute, we may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate it altogether and remand for resentencing, if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support certain specified findings or that the sentence is contrary to law. A trial court’s seriousness and recidivism findings are not among the specified findings subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Baker · filed 2022-06-01(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) does not allow appellate courts to reweigh a trial court’s seriousness and recidivism findings under R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Martin · filed 2022-06-03(G)(2)

A trial court’s seriousness and recidivism findings are not among the specified findings subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Dennison · filed 2022-06-10(G)(2)

The Supreme Court determined that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) “clearly does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence if it concludes that the record does not support the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 because * * * R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 are not among the statutes listed in the provision.” Id. at ¶ 31. ... Based upon the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in Jones, Dennison’s first assignment of error lacks merit, and it is overruled.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not authorize an appellate court to review whether the record supports findings under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

State v. Good · filed 2022-06-13(G)(2)(a)

The other statutes referenced in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), however, are not relevant to this appeal. ... Thus, this Court will not engage in an analysis regarding whether the record supports the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

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

State v. Thompson · filed 2022-06-21(G)(2)(b)

However, we emphasize that pursuant to Jones, we have no authority to modify or vacate a sentence based on any lack of support in the record for a trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the record to decide whether a felony sentence properly reflects the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

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

Knight’s challenge to his sentence is predicated on his contention the record does not support the imposition of a three-year prison term and that the trial court failed to properly consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones, however, we are precluded from undertaking a review of this nature.

An appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence only if clear and convincing evidence shows that the record does not support the required findings or that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Depetro · filed 2022-06-30(G)(2)

“The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that ‘an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.’” State v. Davis, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29824, 2021-Ohio-1796, ¶ 6-7, quoting State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Upon review of this record, we cannot say it shows the trial court failed to consider the sentencing factors, pursuant to R.C. 2929.11, or that Mr. Depetro’s sentence, which is squarely in the statutory range for this offense, is “strikingly inconsistent” with these factors.

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

State v. Palmer · filed 2022-06-30(G)(2)(b)

In fact, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to 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, or modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under those statutes.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit an appellate court to review whether the record supports a sentence under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Sullens · filed 2022-06-30(G)(2)(a)

The Jones Court explained R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among the statutory provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Id. at ¶ 28. Thus, this Court will not engage in an analysis regarding whether the record supports the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

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

State v. Davis · filed 2022-07-12(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) does not authorize an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing sentencing factors under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Davis · filed 2022-07-13(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) limits appellate review of compliance with R.C. 2929.19 to whether the sentence is contrary to law, because R.C. 2929.19 is not listed in subsection (G)(2)(a).

State v. Guzman · filed 2022-07-14(G)(2)

Because R.C. 2929.19 is not listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we are limited to reviewing whether Guzman’s sentence is contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence based on its disagreement with the sentencing court’s weighing of seriousness and recidivism factors.

State v. Lucien · filed 2022-07-18(G)(2)

Essentially, Lucien challenges the manner in which the trial court weighed the various seriousness and recidivism factors in determining his sentence. As noted above, under Jones, such a challenge is not a valid basis for vacating a sentence.

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

State v. Criswell · filed 2022-07-18(G)(2)(a)

As a result, this court may not modify or vacate a felony sentence based on a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about how a sentence reflects the sentencing factors.

State v. Fields · filed 2022-07-21(G)(2)

Further, “[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)(a) does not authorize an appellate court to reweigh the sentencing factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12 when none of the specified statutory findings is at issue.

State v. Smith · filed 2022-07-27(G)(2)(a)

Our authority under the statute is limited to those instances where we “clearly and convincingly find[] that ‘the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under’ certain specified statutory provisions.” ... Thus, we are prohibited by Jones from engaging in the type of review that Smith seeks. ... Therefore, we lack the authority to modify his sentence on this basis.

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

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

This court has no authority to modify or vacate the sentence based upon a claim that the sentence is not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on insufficient record support for findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Lorenzen · filed 2022-06-30(G)(2)(b)

To the extent that appellant’s challenge amounts to a disagreement with the trial court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and its weighing of the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12, we dismiss the argument on the grounds that “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)(b) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 or modify a sentence because the record does not support findings under those provisions.

State v. Purley · filed 2022-07-22(G)(2)(b)

To the extent that appellant’s challenge amounts to a disagreement with the trial court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and its weighing of the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12, we dismiss the argument on the grounds that “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)(b) does not permit an appellate court to modify a felony sentence merely because the record does not support its severity; the court reviews whether the sentence is within the statutory range and whether the trial court considered the required sentencing principles.

State v. Scott · filed 2023-03-31(G)(2)(b)

Regardless of appellant’s attempts to justify his position on appeal, as outlined above, we cannot assess whether, under R.C. 2929.12, his sentence was unsupported by the record. We must simply look to whether it was within the statutory range (it was), and whether the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing (it did).

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

State v. Fisher · filed 2023-04-03(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) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the record to decide whether a felony sentence best reflects the factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Sims · filed 2023-04-03(G)(2)

We additionally observe, however, that “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence merely because the record does not support it under the R.C. 2929.12 sentencing factors.

State v. Freshwater · filed 2023-04-17(G)(2)(b)

“But an appellate court’s determination that the record does not support a sentence does not equate to a determination that the sentence is ‘otherwise contrary to law’ as that term is used in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).” ... Given the holding in Jones, we are precluded from reviewing whether Freshwater’s sentence is supported by the record under R.C. 2929.12.

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

State v. Reed · filed 2023-04-24(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(A) and R.C. 2929.12(C) and (D).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to modify a sentence merely because it views the sentence as unsupported by the record under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Stotts · filed 2023-04-27(G)(2)

The Supreme Court of Ohio has made clear that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit “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, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. For that reason, our authority to modify the sentence would arise only if Stotts demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Richardson · filed 2023-05-16(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)(b) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence solely because the record does not support the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Adams · filed 2023-05-17(G)(2)(b)

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

Section 2953.08 limits review of whether the record supports the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, but allows review of whether the trial court considered matters outside those statutes.

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

Although appellate courts are precluded from reviewing whether the record supports the sentencing factors and considerations, the courts may review the sentencing factors and considerations to determine whether the trial court erroneously considered evidence not contemplated under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit appellate courts to reweigh evidence and change a sentence under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

State v. O.E.P.-T. · filed 2023-06-20(G)(2)

As described above, the proper scope of felony sentence appellate review is set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Under this statute, appellate courts are not permitted to weigh the evidence and alter a sentence under 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 about whether a felony sentence complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Harris · filed 2023-06-23(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.”

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

State v. Chapman · filed 2023-06-23(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)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence merely because it would weigh the sentencing considerations in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 differently.

State v. Butler · filed 2023-05-22(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) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the record does not support the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Grate · filed 2023-06-26(G)(2)

We have instead found that we are bound by the Supreme Court of Ohio holding that R. C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit “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, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649.

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

State v. Coffman · filed 2023-06-26(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) governs appellate review of a trial court’s sentence; it does not govern review of convictions or defenses.

State v. Lawrence · filed 2023-09-25(G)(2)

That statute applies to the review of a trial court’s sentence and is unrelated to the defendant’s convictions and defenses to those convictions.

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 the trial court’s findings under those statutes.

State v. Fenderson · filed 2023-08-18(G)(2)(b)

Moreover, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to 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, or modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under those statutes.

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

State v. Dickinson · filed 2023-08-30(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) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because the record fails to support it under sections 2929.11 or 2929.12.

State v. Warth · filed 2023-10-06(G)(2)

A trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) because “an appellate court’s conclusion that the record does not support a sentence under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 is not the equivalent of a conclusion that the sentence is ‘otherwise contrary to law’ as that term is used in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to reverse a sentence merely because the record does not support it.

State v. Lanier · filed 2023-08-31(G)(2)(b)

Furthermore, the “otherwise contrary to law” language in the sentencing review statute does not allow the appellate court to reverse by finding “the record does not support the sentence.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the record when a felony sentence is challenged under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 but is not claimed to be contrary to law.

State v. Pack · filed 2023-08-31(G)(2)(b)

In State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, the Supreme Court held that absent an express statutory authorization, appellate review of a felony sentence is confined to whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Id. at ¶ 32, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). ... As in Bruce, Mr. Pack does not assert his sentence was contrary to law, but instead claims the facts of his case and the purposes and principles of felony sentencing were not given due consideration by the trial court. ... Bound by precedent, we may not review further.

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

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

Given the supreme court's holding in Jones, we are precluded from reviewing a felony sentence where, as here, appellant's sole contention is that the trial court improperly considered the factors of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing 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 a sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Lewis · filed 2023-09-15(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) does not permit an appellate court to vacate or modify a sentence because the record does not support it under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

Accordingly, even if we were to agree with Mendenhall that his sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, which we do not, we could not vacate or modify his sentence on that basis.

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

State v. Doran · filed 2023-09-28(G)(2)

Pursuant to Jones, we may not independently weigh the R.C. 2929.12 factors.

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

State v. Rodgers · filed 2023-09-28(G)(2)

However, pursuant to Jones, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) “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)(b) limits review of sentences imposed after consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 to whether they are contrary to law; appellate courts cannot independently reweigh record support for those sentences.

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

Therefore, when reviewing felony sentences that are imposed solely after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, this court does not analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record, but only whether they are contrary to law.

When none of the findings listed in subsection (G)(2)(a) applies, a felony sentence may be reviewed under subsection (G)(2)(b) for whether it is otherwise contrary to law.

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

Here, none of the findings under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) are applicable; thus, Saxer must demonstrate that his sentence is “otherwise contrary to law” under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

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

Instead, these considerations appear to pertain to the trial court’s crafting of sentences within statutory guidelines, and “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to independently reweigh mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Roosa · filed 2023-10-16(G)(2)

This court is therefore without authority to independently weigh mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12.

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

State v. Vega · filed 2023-10-26(G)(2)

Although the trial court must consider the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

State v. McElroy · filed 2023-10-16(G)(2)

The Court reasoned, “[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.” Id. at ¶ 42. ... Under Jones, this court does not have authority to independently weigh mitigating factors.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to reverse a sentence because the record does not support the trial court’s application of the felony sentencing factors.

State v. Miller · filed 2023-10-23(G)(2)

This Court has no authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to reverse the sentence on the grounds that the record does not support the trial court’s application of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently review a trial court’s weighing of sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12 or its adherence to the purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11.

State v. Mathis · filed 2023-11-03(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) “does not permit an appellate court to conduct an independent review of a trial court’s sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.12 or its adherence to the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11.”

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. White · filed 2023-11-13(G)(2)(a)

We reiterate our prior holdings, grounded in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.2d 649, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Hamilton · filed 2023-11-20(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 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. Jacobs · filed 2023-12-06(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) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because it finds the record does not support the sentence under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

Bonnette is requesting that we act in a manner that has been prohibited by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649 where the court clearly stated that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit “an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”

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

State v. Norman · filed 2023-12-14(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)(a) does not permit appellate review of whether the record supports findings under R.C. 2929.12.

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

As to Appellant’s other argument, R.C. 2929.12 is not one of the statutes specifically listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

State v. Pierce · filed 2024-01-08(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 R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to reweigh evidence under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12 and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s.

State v. Corrao · filed 2024-01-16(G)(2)(b)

The appellate court cannot reweigh the evidence under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 substituting the trial court’s judgment for its own.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not let an appellate court modify or vacate a sentence by independently reweighing the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

In State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39, the Supreme Court of Ohio found 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." ... Instead he asks this court to independently weigh the evidence in the record concerning the trial court's compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 considerations and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. We have no authority to do so.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) limits appellate review of a felony sentence to whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

Instead, appellate review is limited under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) to whether the sentence imposed is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence merely because it views the record as insufficient to support the trial court’s weighing of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors.

State v. Perkins · filed 2024-02-06(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) does not authorize an appellate court to review a felony sentence for abuse of discretion.

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

Furthermore, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we are not authorized to review “whether the sentencing court abused its discretion” as DeJesus asks us to do in his second assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not authorize an appellate court to review whether the record supports a trial court’s findings under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12, but permits review of whether the sentence is contrary to law.

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

The Likens court, however, like this court, indicates that appellate courts do “not have the statutory authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) to review whether the record supports the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.12 and 2929.11,” but it can review whether the sentence is contrary to law for reasons such as those outlined above: failure to consider the statutory factors and sentencing outside of the permissible statutory range.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits appellate review of whether a sentencing court improperly treated a defendant’s silence as a lack of remorse.

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

Moreover, whether a trial court improperly considered an offender’s silence at sentencing as demonstrating a lack of remorse falls within the parameters of whether a sentence is “otherwise contrary to law,” and is therefore proper for appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Denny · filed 2026-02-09(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 allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view of record support under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12, but consecutive sentencing is reviewable under section 2953.08(G)(2).

State v. Baynes · filed 2026-02-17(G)(2)(b)

While 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, the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentencing is reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the record to decide whether a sentence reflects the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Shefbuch · filed 2026-03-02(G)(2)

Thus, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow “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; see also State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22.

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

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

And, significantly, “[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.” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42.

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. Rivers · filed 2026-03-13(G)(2)(b)

Thus, when we review a felony sentence imposed after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, we do not examine whether the sentence is unsupported by the record; rather, we simply determine whether the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because the record does not support the trial court’s weighing of the factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”

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

State v. Jones · filed 2026-03-23(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing a felony sentence under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Smith · filed 2026-04-15(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) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence based on its own assessment of how the record supports the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Sampson · filed 2026-04-16(G)(2)

Additionally, although the trial court must consider the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh sentencing factors or decide whether the record supports prison rather than community control.

State v. Lucero · filed 2026-04-20(G)(2)

This court is not permitted to independently reweigh the competing factors on appeal or review whether the record supports the imposition of a prison term rather than community control.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit appellate review of additional factors a sentencing court considered under Sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

Further, any additional factors relied upon by the court during its consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is beyond this court’s review.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to decide whether the record supports a sentencing court’s assessment of remorse under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Castaneda · filed 2026-04-24(G)(2)

Felony sentencing challenges are reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... As Castaneda acknowledges, an appellate court’s contrary to law review does not extend to a factual determination of whether a sentence is supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. ... The trial court’s finding that Castaneda lacked remorse falls squarely within the R.C. 2929.12 sentencing factors and is not reviewable by this court.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to reweigh the record and modify a felony sentence based on its own assessment of the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Church · filed 2026-05-14(G)(2)

However, R.C. 2953.08(G) “does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, at ¶ 39. ... Church is asking this court to review the factual basis for the trial court’s considerations of specific sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. This court has previously acknowledged that we lack the authority to engage in this type of analysis.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the sentencing factors when reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Blake · filed 2026-05-14(G)(2)

Appellant asks this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court’s regarding how the principles and purposes of sentencing should have been applied and what sentence was appropriate. We are not permitted do so. See State v. Booker, 2022-Ohio-3433, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, at ¶ 42 (“‘R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to conduct a freestanding inquiry[.]’”).

Section 2953.08 does not permit an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Brady · filed 2026-05-14

Nothing in R.C. 2953.08 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) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s on compliance with felony sentencing purposes and factors.

State v. Hinkle · filed 2026-05-21(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 "concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 [purposes and principles of felony sentencing] and 2929.12 [seriousness and recidivism factors]."

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

State v. Salmon · filed 2026-05-22(G)(2)

Furthermore, “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. Bowles, 2021-Ohio-4401, ¶ 7 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to independently reweigh felony sentencing factors or substitute its judgment for the trial court's.

State v. Hedrick · filed 2026-05-26(G)(2)

"R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to conduct an independent review of a trial court's sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.12 or its adherence to the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11." ... Although Hedrick argues that community control would have been a more appropriate sanction, we may not independently reweigh the sentencing factors or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence by reweighing the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Nation · filed 2026-05-29(G)(2)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow 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.

When none of the specified findings is at issue, § 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate review to whether the felony sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Jennings · filed 2026-06-05(G)(2)

This case does not involve any of the specified findings listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), and therefore we need only consider whether Jennings’s sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reweigh the record and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Nye · filed 2026-06-26(G)(2)

However, “[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.” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42. ... To the extent that Nye argues that his sentence is unsupported by the record, the invitation to reweigh the record and substitute the trial court’s judgment is precluded by Jones.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) directs appellate courts reviewing restitution imposed as part of a felony sentence to determine whether the order is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Donaldson · filed 2023-01-27(G)(2)(b)

“On review of a trial court's imposition of restitution as part of a felony sentence, we apply the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), inquiring whether the imposition of restitution is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” ... After reviewing the record, we find no arguable merit in a contention that the restitution order was contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) governs review of restitution imposed as part of a felony sentence; the court asks whether the order is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Spanks · filed 2019-02-26(G)(2)(b)

In reviewing the trial court's imposition of restitution as part of a felony sentence, we apply the standard found in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), and inquire whether the imposition of restitution is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)'s standard of review applies to restitution in felony sentences; an appellate court will reverse a restitution order if it is contrary to law or clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

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

Our standard of review for felony sentencing as set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) also applies to restitution in felony sentences. ... Therefore, we will not reverse a sentence imposing restitution unless it is either contrary to law or clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the clear-and-convincing standard for appellate review of a felony restitution order.

State v. Burns · filed 2019-06-28(G)(2)

Therefore, we do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the restitution order.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences, including restitution orders, because restitution is part of a sentence.

State v. Johnson · filed 2020-04-27(G)(2)

Beginning with appellant's third assignment of error, this court has previously held that a restitution order is reviewed according to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), because the term "sentence" encompasses a financial sanction such as restitution.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires appellate courts to review felony restitution awards for whether they are clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Young · filed 2020-10-16(G)(2)(b)

Young’s two assignments of error misstate the applicable standard of review. Reviewing her arguments under the proper standard—R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b)—we find that the trial court’s restitution award was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 governs review of restitution imposed as part of a felony sentence for whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Hayes · filed 2020-11-18

We review the imposition of restitution as part of a felony sentence to determine whether the sentence complies with R.C. 2953.08 in that it is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) generally requires restitution orders to be reviewed under the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard.

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

Generally, this court reviews an order of restitution under the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard found in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony sentences, including restitution orders.

State v. Mihalik · filed 2021-07-19(G)(2)

Appellate courts review felony sentences, including restitution orders, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)'s clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard does not govern this court's review of restitution orders; the court reviews those orders for abuse of discretion.

State v. Beckwith · filed 2022-07-07(G)(2)

This court has not followed other appellate districts in reviewing restitution orders using the more deferential clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), as set forth in State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231. ... Accordingly, we review Beckwith’s challenge to the restitution orders in this case for an abuse of discretion.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires an appellate court to find clearly and convincingly that a felony restitution order is otherwise contrary to law before modifying or vacating it.

State v. Dumas · filed 2023-05-04(G)(2)(b)

Thus, we must clearly and convincingly find that the restitution order was otherwise contrary to law in order to modify or vacate the trial court’s restitution order.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of felony restitution orders.

State v. Trost · filed 2023-09-05(G)(2)

Appellate courts review felony restitution orders pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the standard and available remedies for appellate review of felony sentences, including restitution orders.

State v. Morlock · filed 2024-02-07(G)(2)

We review felony sentences, including sentences ordering restitution, using the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08. ... R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires a reviewing court to determine whether restitution imposed as part of a felony sentence is contrary to law.

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

“‘[T]he proper standard of review for analyzing the imposition of restitution as a part of a felony sentence is whether the sentence complies with R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).’” State v. Young, 2020-Ohio-4943, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Collins, 2015-Ohio-3710, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). Therefore, we must determine whether the restitution imposed was “contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to modify an appealed sentence, but it does not eliminate a defendant’s right to a resentencing hearing when postrelease control must be corrected.

State v. Mason · filed 2019-05-09

Further, there is nothing in R.C. 2953.08 — which says that an “appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed” — that allows us to conclude that the General Assembly intended on depriving defendants of their right to a resentencing hearing through appellate modification.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) authorizes an appellate court to modify a felony sentence that is contrary to law, including by removing an improperly imposed fine.

State v. Kiser · filed 2019-09-06(G)(2)(b)

Under the authority granted us by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), we modify appellant’s sentence to eliminate the imposition of the $10,000 fine.

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

State v. Roberts · filed 2021-01-19(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)(b) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because it finds the sentence unsupported by the record under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

The Supreme Court of Ohio has recently 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.” State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. In other words, this court may not substitute its judgment in determining whether the sentence is supported under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Id. at ¶ 41-42.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a claim that the record does not support consecutive sentences.

State v. Bates · filed 2021-06-14(D)(1)

However, appellant's claim that the evidence in the record does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences is not reviewable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

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

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

But an appellate court's determination the record does not support a sentence does not equate to a determination the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law” as that term is used in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). ... Based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion in Jones, supra, we find we do not have statutory authority to modify or vacate Appellant’s sentence based on his argument R.C. 2929.12 mitigated against a prison 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 on a sentence’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

More importantly, as held in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 169 N.E.3d 649, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42, “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.” ... Thus, pursuant to Jones, even assuming arguendo that an appellate court does not concur with a disputed trial court sentence, in circumstances such as those presented in this case, it nevertheless would fail to warrant granting the assignment and remanding the case for resentencing.

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

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

Notably, R.C. 2929.12 is not one of statutes listed, and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides no “basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record[.]”

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

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

According to Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, our analysis ends there, because R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a mechanism for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on finding that the sentence is “contrary to law” because it is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

State v. Gifford · filed 2022-05-13(G)(2)

Accordingly, we agree with Gifford, and find clearly and convincingly that the record does not support the sentencing court’s finding of great or unusual harm under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b). We find Gifford’s first assignment of error well-taken. Under the authority granted to us under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we modify Gifford’s sentence to reflect that his sentences on Counts 1 and 2 are to be served concurrently.

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

State v. Troche · filed 2023-02-27(G)(2)

Thus, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) “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.” Id. at ¶ 39. ... Accordingly, even if we were to agree with Troche that his sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, we could not vacate or modify his sentence on that basis.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence by vacating a driver’s-license suspension that is contrary to law.

State v. Chatman · filed 2023-05-12(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we hereby modify Chatman’s sentence by vacating his driver’s-license suspension.

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

State v. Fleming · filed 2023-10-13(G)(2)

Fleming is requesting that we act in a manner that has been prohibited by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649 where the court clearly stated that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit “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.” We are therefore bound to reject Fleming’s request.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence when clear and convincing evidence shows that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law, including when it rests on impermissible considerations.

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

For that reason, our authority to modify the sentence would arise only if Mourer demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law” which includes evidence that the sentence was imposed based on impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that fall outside those that are contained 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 sentence based on its view that the record does not support the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Rappuhn · filed 2024-03-28(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) does not permit an appellate court to modify a sentence merely because it finds the record does not support the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

The Supreme Court of Ohio has made clear that R.C. §2953.08(G)(2) does not permit “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 R.C. 2929.12” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. For that reason, our authority to modify the sentence would arise only if the appellant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence instead of remanding to correct an error.

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

In lieu of remanding this matter to the trial court as requested by the state, we choose to modify the sentence as permitted under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).