Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence to decide which sentence best complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 or to conduct a freestanding review of a death sentence.

State v. Clinton · filed 2024-09-27(G)(2)

Clinton’s arguments are also precluded by State v. Jones, 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. In particular, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to conduct a freestanding inquiry like the independent sentence evaluation the Supreme Court must conduct under R.C. 2929.05(A) when reviewing a death-penalty sentence.”).

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

State v. Little · filed 2024-11-12(G)(2)(a)

The findings and/or considerations made by a trial court under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among those statutory provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit modification or vacation of a sentence when the appellate court does not find it contrary to law.

State v. Hawkins · filed 2025-02-13(G)(2)(b)

Because we decline to find that Hawkins’s sentence is contrary to law, the sentence imposed is not subject to modification or vacation pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

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

State v. McDew · filed 2025-04-09(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) authorizes an appellate court to vacate a forfeiture order that makes a sentence contrary to law.

State v. DeLong · filed 2025-07-01(G)(2)(b)

Therefore, the forfeiture of the shotgun was contrary to law. To promote judicial efficiency, pursuant to our authority in R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2), we vacate the trial court’s order for DeLong to forfeit his shotgun.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence to remove an unauthorized mandatory designation without remanding for resentencing.

State v. Friend · filed 2025-09-10(G)(2)

This requested procedure of modifying the sentence without remanding is proper under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

Cleveland v. Hero Homes JV2, L.L.C. · filed 2025-10-02(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), this court, upon finding that a sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence . . . or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.”

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

State v. Short · filed 2025-10-30(G)(2)

Thus “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 . . . .”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not let an appellate court modify or vacate a sentence based on its own view of whether the record supports the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Shelton · filed 2025-12-11(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), however, “‘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) authorizes an appellate court to modify a felony sentence.

State v. Cornelious · filed 2026-01-16(G)(2)

We exercise our authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to modify Cornelious’s sentence.

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

State v. Carter · filed 2017-03-31(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may only vacate or modify a defendant’s sentence if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support any mandatory sentencing findings or that the sentence imposed is ... otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentence it clearly and convincingly finds contrary to law, including a vindictively increased sentence.

State v. Ferrell · filed 2022-03-21(G)(2)(b)

The appellate court may “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing * * * if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * the sentence is * * * contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). ... Appellate courts have consistently determined that, where the trial court does not provide findings sufficient to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness, reversal and modification of the sentence by the appellate court is an appropriate remedy.

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 sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Williams · filed 2022-06-29(G)(2)(b)

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

Section 2953.08(D)(3)'s bar on appellate review of an aggravated murder sentence is constitutional.

State v. Grevious · filed 2019-05-20(D)(3)

We agree with and adopt the analysis and rationale of our sister districts who have determined that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is constitutional.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of murder sentences, and that bar does not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments.

State v. Nelson · filed 2022-11-22(D)(3)

Pursuant to our decision in Weaver, we find that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. ... We reach the same conclusion as our sister districts and find that the absence of appellate review for Nelson’s sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits appellate review of errors in the computation of jail time credit.

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

An error in the computation of jail time credit is subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard for appellate review of a jail-time-credit determination.

State v. Perkins · filed 2019-06-10(G)(2)

We review the trial court’s determination as to the amount of jail-time credit to which Mr. Perkins is entitled under the “clearly and convincingly” contrary to law standard. State v. Smith, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-G-3185, 2014-Ohio-5076, ¶15; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶1.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) provides the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard for reviewing a trial court’s jail time credit determination.

State v. White · filed 2022-08-01(G)(2)(b)

We review the trial court’s determination as to the amount of jail time credit to which Mr. White is entitled to under the “clearly and convincingly” contrary to law standard.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits appellate review of errors in calculating jail-time credit.

State v. Young · filed 2022-09-08(G)(2)

“An error in the computation of jail-time credit is subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to modify or remand a disputed sentence when the required error is clearly and convincingly demonstrated.

State v. Wells · filed 2023-05-25(G)(2)

Appellate courts may increase, decrease, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed trial court sentence “if it clearly and convincingly is demonstrated that either the record of evidence does not support applicable statutory findings or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Accordingly, Wells has not satisfied his burden requiring him to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that he is entitled to these transportation days.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires felony jail-time credit determinations to be reviewed for whether they are clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Johnson · filed 2023-11-13(G)(2)(b)

We review whether the trial court's determination as to the amount of jail time credit for a felony is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a jail-time-credit calculation if it clearly and convincingly finds the awarded credit contrary to law.

State v. Favours · filed 2024-07-25(G)(2)(b)

An appellate court may modify or vacate a trial court’s computation of jail-time credit if it clearly and convincingly finds that the awarded credit is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits appellate review of errors in calculating jail-time credit.

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

“‘An error in the computation of jail-time credit is subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).’” State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio-4175, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Hearn, 2021-Ohio-86, ¶ 6 (6th Dist.).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) supplies the clearly and convincingly contrary-to-law standard for appellate review of a trial court’s jail-time credit determination.

State v. Burrell · filed 2026-05-27(G)(2)

This Court reviews the trial court’s determination as to the amount of jail-time credit under the “clearly and convincingly” contrary-to-law standard. State v. Perkins, 2019-Ohio-2288, ¶12 (11th Dist.); R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(B)(2) permits the state to appeal a felony sentence as contrary to law without seeking leave, including when it challenges the merger of offenses.

State v. Hamad · filed 2019-06-17(B)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(B)(2), the state was not required to seek leave to assign as error that the trial court’s merger of certain felony offenses was “contrary to law.”

Section 2953.08(B)(2) does not give the state an appeal as of right from a modification of a sentence alleged to be contrary to law.

State v. Wright · filed 2022-09-01(B)(2)

Accordingly, R.C. 2953.08(B)(2) does not provide the state with authority to appeal the April 5, 2022 decision as a matter of right.

Section 2953.08(B)(2) lets a prosecutor appeal a sentence contrary to law as a matter of right, but does not cover a modification of a sentence imposed in a prior case.

State v. McCuller · filed 2025-03-13(B)(2)

Accordingly, the State has not appealed McCuller’s sentence in the instant matter but the modification of his prior sentences. R.C. 2953.08(B)(2) “does not refer to the modification of a sentence; rather, it authorizes the prosecuting attorney to appeal, as a matter of right, a sentence imposed on a defendant on the grounds that ‘[t]he sentence is contrary to law.’” State v. Cunningham, 113 Ohio St.3d 108, 112.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to independently weigh the record and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s application of the felony sentencing principles in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Clark · filed 2024-10-15(G)(2)

“Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42. Thus, this court lacks authority to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute our judgment for the trial court as to the sentence that best achieves the purposes and principles of sentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit appellate review of a challenge based solely on the trial court’s consideration of the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Davis · filed 2024-10-25(G)(2)

Here, Davis’s sole argument is a challenge to the trial court’s consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and such an argument is not subject to this court’s review.

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

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

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not, however, 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 Jones at ¶ 42.

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

State v. Young · filed 2024-11-19(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.”

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 whether a sentence reflects the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Garcia · filed 2024-11-26(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.” Jones at ¶ 42.

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

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

With respect to our review of a felony sentence, because R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) is specifically applicable only to certain divisions of R.C. 2929.13, 2929.14, and 2929.20, it does not provide a basis for this court to review whether the record supports the 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 the evidence and substitute its judgment about whether a sentence complies with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Crosby · filed 2024-08-28(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 sentencing evidence or substitute its judgment for the trial court’s under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Smith · filed 2024-09-03(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit appellate review of a sentence within the statutory range based solely on the trial court’s application of R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

State v. Wilson · filed 2024-09-27(G)(2)

However, 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.” ... None of these arguments present issues subject to appellate review because they are all governed by R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 and Wilson’s sentence was within the statutory range for a third-degree felony.

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

State v. Watson · filed 2024-10-07(G)(2)

First, we must be mindful that “ ‘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.’ ” Nolan at ¶ 44, quoting State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 21, in turn citing Jones at ¶ 41-42.

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

State v. Shiffert · filed 2024-10-11(G)(2)(b)

As indicated above, however, we are unable to modify or vacate a sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) based on a lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.12.

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. Shoff · filed 2024-06-24(G)(2)

Shoff’s sentence is within the statutory range and, as emphasized above, we cannot evaluate whether the trial court’s considerations or the weight it afforded the factors leading to its imposition of sentence were unsupported by the record.

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. Clanin · filed 2024-06-25(G)(2)(b)

As stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio, 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, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39.

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

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

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its own weighing of the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Jeanneret · filed 2024-07-08(G)(2)

Importantly, 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.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39. “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.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its own assessment of how the trial court applied the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Paxson · filed 2024-07-15(G)(2)(b)

According to the Court, 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.” ... This Court, pursuant to Jones, lacks the authority to review the record to consider how a trial court has applied the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.

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

State v. Cook · filed 2024-07-15(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.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing Jones at ¶ 31, 39. If we were to infer a sentence was contrary to law and vacate it merely because we did not believe the sentencing factors supported it, we would in effect be vacating a sentence based on our view that it 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 about which sentence best complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Vega-Medina · filed 2024-07-25(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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to vacate or modify a felony sentence because it weighs the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors differently from the trial court.

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

Even if we agreed that the factors and principles in the identified statutes weighed against the imposed sentence, appellate courts are not permitted to vacate or modify a sentence on such grounds.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reverse or modify consecutive sentences based on the general purposes and principles of felony sentencing or the seriousness and recidivism factors.

State v. Hondros · filed 2024-05-16(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Dietrich · filed 2024-05-28(G)(2)

This court is not permitted to independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s sentencing determination for an individual sentence.

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 on compliance with the felony sentencing factors.

State v. Hollie · filed 2024-05-30(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 because it views the sentence as unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

An appellate court’s jurisdiction to review sentencing factors is limited under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). Under that statute, the appellate court cannot 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) 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. Lambert · filed 2024-06-17(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 authorize an appellate court to reweigh the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Mantell · filed 2024-03-22(G)(2)

We decline to follow the dissent in Jones, and find we do not have the authority to reweigh the sentencing factors set forth 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 merely because it believes the record does not support the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Daniels · filed 2024-03-22(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 allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence merely because it views the sentence as unsupported under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Nolan · filed 2024-03-27(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.”

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 sections 2929.11 or 2929.12.

State v. Cornett · filed 2024-04-01(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) limits review of a felony sentence to the specified unsupported findings or a sentence that is otherwise contrary to law; it does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the sentencing factors.

State v. Segovia · filed 2024-04-12(G)(2)

The trial court was not required to make any findings under the statutes enumerated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). As such, we simply consider whether Segovia’s sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to vacate a sentence merely because the record does not support it; the sentence must be otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Blackburn · filed 2024-04-22(G)(2)(b)

This Court remains mindful that “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).” Jones at ¶ 32. As Blackburn has not demonstrated that his sentence is otherwise contrary to law, he cannot prevail on his assignment of error.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) addresses appellate review of judicial release findings under R.C. 2929.20(I), but does not cover decisions to revoke community control after judicial release under R.C. 2929.20(K).

State v. Zampini-Solarek · filed 2024-04-22(G)(2)

First, as mentioned above, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) refers to appellate review of R.C. 2929.20(I), which concerns judicial release findings, but does not refer to R.C. 2929.20(K), which concerns revocation of community control after judicial release. ... We hold that, by the same reasoning, a trial court’s decision to revoke or not revoke community control, or otherwise sanction or not sanction an offender for not complying with the terms of community control while on judicial release is also subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to review whether the record supports a sentence under R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Rutter · filed 2024-04-22(G)(2)

Thus, following precedent, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to review whether the record supports the sentence under R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit 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. Stewart · filed 2024-04-24(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.”

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

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

However, even if we assumed, without finding, that the trial court improperly weighed the sentencing factors, under Jones, we have no authority to modify or vacate a sentence on this basis.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits appellate modification or vacatur to specified sentencing findings; findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among them.

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

While R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) allows a reviewing court to modify or vacate a sentence, that ability is limited to certain specified statutory provisions. Findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among those statutory provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

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

Our case law is clear that “‘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.’” Nazir, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112726, 2024-Ohio-577, at ¶ 30, quoting Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, at ¶ 42.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not apply to review of the trafficking and drug paraphernalia sentences addressed here.

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

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not apply to Appellant’s sentences for trafficking in drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. The sentences fit in the applicable statutory sentencing range, and we find the sentence is not contrary to law.

When none of the statutes listed in § 2953.08(G)(2)(a) applies, appellate review of a felony sentence is limited to whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Keller · filed 2019-09-20(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) sets forth a standard for review of findings made pursuant to specific statutes, none of which are applicable to the instant case. Therefore, we only review the instant sentence to determine if it is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) provides for review of sentencing findings under its listed statutes; when none applies, the appellate court reviews whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Webb · filed 2019-10-07(G)(2)(a)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), allowing appellate review of whether the record supports findings made by the trial court, does not apply in the instant case. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) sets forth a standard for review of findings made pursuant to specific statutes, none of which are applicable to the instant case. Therefore, we only review the instant sentence to determine if it is contrary to law.

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

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

But a sentence is not “contrary to law” under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) simply because an appellate court is of the “view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Id. at ¶ 39. Therefore, pursuant to Jones, we have no authority to alter Lough’s sentence based on our own analysis of the statutory considerations under 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 sentence because the record does not support findings under section 2929.12 or the sentence as a whole under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Loy · filed 2021-02-08(G)(2)

Specifically, it does not permit us to modify or vacate a sentence on the basis that a trial court’s R.C. 2929.12 findings are unsupported by the record or that the record does not support the sentence as a whole under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to reverse or modify a sentence only for unsupported findings under the specified provisions or because the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Walker · filed 2021-06-17(G)(2)

Accordingly, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may reverse or modify a sentence only if the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or if the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to modify a sentence because the record does not support a trial court’s assessment of seriousness under section 2929.12.

State v. Hughes · filed 2021-09-01(G)(2)

She asks us to review the record and determine that the serious physical injury caused by her felonious assault offense “is not the most serious form of harm” which, in essence, is asking us to review the record and determine whether it supports the trial court’s implicit finding under R.C. 2929.12(B)(2). Her argument falls outside the scope of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and asks us to go beyond our statutory authority.

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

State v. Durand · filed 2022-03-31(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 prison sentence because the record does not support the trial court’s decision after considering R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

However, this argument is unavailing because “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.” State v. Orzechowski, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-029, 2021-Ohio-985, ¶ 13.

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. Hendrickson · filed 2022-09-22(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 reweigh sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and substitute its judgment for the sentencing court’s.

State v. Walker · filed 2022-11-07(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. ... Here, Appellant asks this court to independently weigh the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12 because the sentencing court “should have exercised some compassion” for Appellant. We cannot do so.

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

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

In State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, the supreme court held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to review whether the record supports a sentence under R.C. 2929.11 or R.C. 2929.12. Id. at ¶ 30. As a result, this court does not independently weigh the evidence in the record to substitute the judgment of the trial court.

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

State v. Illing · filed 2022-11-30(G)(2)

And under Jones, this court is not permitted to 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, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, at ¶ 42.

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

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

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) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because the record lacks support for findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Lane · filed 2023-04-21(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 authorize an appellate court to vacate or modify a sentence because the record fails to show consistency with the purposes of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11(A).

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

Notably, R.C. 2929.11 does not require a trial court to make any findings, and the statute is not among those identified in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). As a result, we may not vacate or modify a sentence based on a belief that the record fails to demonstrate consistency with the purposes of felony sentencing found in R.C. 2929.11(A).

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

State v. Taylor · filed 2023-11-17(G)(2)

We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08. ... “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.” ... As stated above, we find the trial court complied with the felony sentencing statutes and the sentence was not contrary to law.

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

State v. Dejesus · filed 2023-11-17(G)(2)(b)

This court, in State v. Goode, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-22-012, 2023-Ohio-863, ¶ 13, citing State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39, 41-42, found that “under State v. Jones, 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 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.” Appellant’s first assignment of error clearly sets forth a challenge to the trial court’s consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Therefore, consistent with Goode and Jones, we find appellant’s first assignment of error 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 sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Neal · filed 2023-12-07(G)(2)

Contrary to appellant’s argument, it is not for an appellate court to review whether the record clearly and convincingly supports the sentencing factors and considerations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, 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)(b) limits appellate review of whether the record supports sentencing findings to sentences imposed under the provisions it lists.

State v. Lowry · filed 2023-12-13(G)(2)(b)

However, Lowry fails to tether any of these arguments to one of the statutory provisions enumerated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). Therefore, we lack the statutory authority to review the trial court’s sentence to determine whether it is supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to alter a felony sentence only when a specified ground for review applies.

State v. Ross · filed 2023-12-15(G)(2)

Having reviewed both the record and the applicable law, we hold that none of the referenced statutes are relevant to Ross’s sentence, and therefore that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit us to increase, reduce, modify, or vacate the trial court’s sentence.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not authorize an appellate court to review whether a felony sentence comports with the purposes and factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Williams · filed 2023-12-22(G)(2)(a)

But we lack authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) to review whether his sentence comports with 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 sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. McNair · filed 2024-01-12(G)(2)

Appellant 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 reweigh sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 or R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Meeks · filed 2024-01-12(G)(2)

Meeks requests relief that the statute does not provide. 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” State v. Reynolds, 6th Dist. Sandusky Nos. S-22-022, S-22-023, 2023-Ohio-2624, ¶ 10, quoting Bryant at ¶ 21; see also Jones at ¶ 41-42. Thus, this court cannot review the trial court’s finding and weighing of those factors, and his assignment of error on this issue may be summarily denied.

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

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

As R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among the statutes cited in subdivision (a) of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the court cannot use (G)(2)(a) to review whether the record supports the principles and factors in 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 for the trial court’s when reviewing compliance with felony sentencing factors.

State v. Eckelberry · filed 2024-03-13(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) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the record and substitute its judgment about which sentence best complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Lycans · filed 2024-07-08(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) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s.

State v. Taylor · filed 2024-10-18(G)(2)

Effectively, Taylor asks 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, which R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit.

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 it under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12; consecutive sentences remain reviewable under section 2953.08(G)(2).

State v. Boone · filed 2024-12-31(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) limits review of a prison sentence imposed after a felony community control violation to whether the sentence is contrary to law when none of the listed statutory findings apply.

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

In this case, none of the relevant statutes mentioned in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) apply to this case; accordingly, we must simply determine whether Ward’s sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

State v. Ullman · filed 2024-12-16(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) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Cramer · filed 2024-12-20(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) does not permit appellate review of a felony sentence based solely on a claim that the trial court improperly considered the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Kern · filed 2024-12-20(G)(2)

In conclusion, under Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, we are precluded from reviewing Kern’s sentences based solely on his contention that the trial court did not properly consider R.C. 2929.12 before imposing a term of prison.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) precludes 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 and 2929.12.

State v. Rogg · filed 2024-12-30(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 failed to properly consider or weigh the factors of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing a sentence.

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

State v. Murphy · filed 2025-01-13(G)(2)(a)

Therefore, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit this 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)(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. Goins · filed 2025-01-17(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 reweigh mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when reviewing a felony sentence.

State v. Rivera · filed 2025-01-31(G)(2)

We do not review a felony sentence for an abuse of discretion. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Because we cannot review the trial court’s findings and weighing of the factors under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, his first assignment of error may be summarily denied.

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 sentencing court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Fischer · filed 2025-02-03(G)(2)

For this reason, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not enable an appellate court to 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.” State v. Foster, 2021-Ohio-1454, ¶ 31 (3d Dist.).

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

State v. Miller · filed 2025-02-03(G)(2)

Appellant’s argument essentially asks this Court to reweigh the evidence and determine that his sentences are inconsistent with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Pursuant to Jones, this Court is not permitted to do so.

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 the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11.

State v. Schmelzer · filed 2024-12-23(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.

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

State v. Shurtleff · filed 2025-02-20(G)(2)(b)

Accordingly, when reviewing a felony sentence imposed solely after consideration of the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, appellate courts no longer analyze whether the sentence is supported by the record. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the felony sentence is contrary to law.

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

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

Importantly, the Supreme Court of Ohio has directed Ohio’s courts of appeal 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.” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 31. 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(F) requires an appellate court reviewing sentencing findings to consider the entire trial court record, including sentencing statements and investigative reports submitted before sentencing.

State v. Burton · filed 2025-02-27(F)

In assessing whether the record supports the trial court’s findings, R.C. 2953.08(F) requires this court to review the entire trial court record, including any oral or written statements made to or by the trial court at the sentencing hearing, and any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits an appellate court to reduce or modify a sentence for unsupported findings only under the sentencing provisions it lists.

State v. Currie · filed 2025-02-28(G)(2)(a)

But we may only reduce or modify a sentence if “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). R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ... Therefore, Currie’s record-based argument is beyond the scope of our review.

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. Harris · filed 2025-02-28(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 allow an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Riley · filed 2025-03-03(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 evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s on the sentence that best satisfies Ohio’s felony sentencing provisions.

State v. Scott · filed 2025-03-10(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence merely because it disagrees with how the trial court weighed the considerations in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Mroczka · filed 2025-03-13(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 reweigh how the trial court used the evidence when applying felony sentencing factors.

State v. Bigler · filed 2025-03-17(G)(2)

As we cannot review how the trial court uses the evidence before it when considering the statutory factors, we do not find the sentence contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing a felony sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Sowers · filed 2025-03-19

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)(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 R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Wickham · filed 2025-03-14(G)(2)(b)

We may not, however, undertake such an analysis. 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, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39.

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

State v. Parks · filed 2025-03-18(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 based on its own weighing of the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Poveda · filed 2025-03-28(G)(2)(b)

An appellate court cannot vacate or modify a sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “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 reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about a sentence’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Alliman · filed 2025-04-25(G)(2)

However, 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)(b) permits appellate relief from a felony sentence when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Rupp · filed 2025-03-31(G)(2)(b)

We have reviewed the record, and it does not clearly and convincingly show Mr. Rupp’s sentence is contrary to law or the trial court failed to consider the sentencing factors and the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in Ohio law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) sets the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard for appellate review of restitution orders.

State v. Spain · filed 2025-03-31(G)(2)

We review a restitution order for whether that order is clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to find error in a felony sentence when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the specified sentencing findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Sanchez · filed 2025-04-10(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; but rather, if this court “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * ” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then we may conclude that the court erred in sentencing.

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

State v. Nicholson · filed 2025-04-22(G)(2)

As for Nicholson's sentence, this court reviews felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08. ... Nicholson's sentences are therefore not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

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

State v. Davis · filed 2025-05-16(G)(2)

Under that statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either: (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings (including those in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which concerns the imposition of consecutive sentences); or (2) that the sentence imposed is otherwise contrary to law.

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 R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Hiles · filed 2025-03-31(G)(2)

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

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

State v. Hedges · filed 2025-03-31(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) does not authorize appellate review of a claim that the trial court misapplied R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 or imposed a sentence longer than the record supports.

State v. Belton · filed 2025-04-02(G)

To the extent Belton argues the trial court (1) misapplied either R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, or (2) imposed a lengthier sentence than the record supports, this Court cannot review his argument. R.C. 2953.08(G) does not authorize a review of that kind.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate review of felony sentences and does not permit an appellate court to reweigh how the trial court applied the sentencing factors.

State v. Storer · filed 2025-04-07(G)(2)

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will only reverse a sentence “if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” ... As we cannot review how the trial court uses the evidence before it when considering the statutory factors, we do not find the sentence contrary to law.

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

State v. Burgos · filed 2025-04-10(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.”

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

State v. Garcia · filed 2025-04-28(G)(2)

However, 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]." State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit 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. Shriver · filed 2025-05-15(G)(2)(b)

As noted above, we may not reevaluate the trial court's findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. 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, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39.

When no findings under the statutes listed in § 2953.08(G)(2) are required, appellate review asks whether the felony sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Masters · filed 2025-05-16(G)(2)

In both cases at issue, the trial court was not required to make any findings under the relevant statutes listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); accordingly, we must simply determine whether Masters’s sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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 felony sentence.

State v. McQueen · filed 2025-05-30(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 an appellate court to reweigh sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 to decide whether prison or community control was more appropriate.

State v. Coon · filed 2025-05-23(G)(2)

Coon’s sole argument is a challenge to the court’s discretion in determining the appropriate punishment based on its weighing of the sentencing factors and considerations. Such an argument is not subject to this court’s review.

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. Gross · filed 2025-05-27(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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) limits review of consecutive sentences to whether the record supports the trial court’s required findings; an appellate court cannot substitute its preferred sentence.

State v. Gordon · filed 2025-05-27(G)(2)(a)

In addition, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) “does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its view of an appropriate sentence for that of the trial court.” ... Appellant’s argument is directed to the appropriateness of consecutive sentences rather than to the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings and their support in the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits review of a felony sentence requiring no findings under its listed statutes to whether the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Couch · filed 2025-05-30(G)(2)

Because Couch’s prison sentence for burglary did not require the trial court to make any findings under the statutes identified in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the only question is whether the sentence was contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when assessing compliance with felony sentencing principles and factors.

State v. Bates · filed 2025-06-04(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 a felony sentence based on its own weighing of the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors.

State v. Smith · filed 2025-06-13(G)(2)(b)

But reviewing and weighing those factors exceeds the permissible scope of our appellate review, as R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit a reviewing court to vacate or modify a sentence “based upon its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39.

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

State v. Cordell · filed 2025-06-13(G)(2)

“However, 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. Alliman, 2025-Ohio-1490, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.).

Section 2953.08 limits appellate review of consecutive sentences to the trial court’s statutory findings, rather than the aggregate sentence.

State v. Parker · filed 2025-06-16(G)(2)

And, while Parker takes issue with his aggregate sentence, “[n]owhere does the appellate-review statute 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.” State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶ 43.

A challenge to a trial court’s finding under R.C. 2929.13(B) falls under § 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

State v. Chime · filed 2025-06-27(G)(2)(a)

Her argument, however, is that the trial court erred in its finding under R.C. 2929.13(B), which is accounted for in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

An appellant challenging a felony sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 must show by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

State v. Davis · filed 2025-07-07(G)(2)(b)

To prevail on an appeal relating to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, an appellant must present clear and convincing evidence that the 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 to decide which sentence best complies with sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Kane · filed 2025-07-09(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) does not allow an appellate court to independently reweigh the record to decide whether a felony sentence best complies with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Roe · filed 2025-07-15(G)(2)

As we have previously stated, “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.” ... Thus, pursuant to Jones, Roe’s argument is not subject to our review.

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

State v. Sargent · filed 2025-07-18(G)(2)

Our review of Appellant’s challenge to his sentence is limited to determining whether his sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law as measured against the evidence in the record. ... We further find we are without authority to independently weigh the evidence in the record or substitute our judgment with respect to the weight given to Appellant’s military service.

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 principles and factors.

State v. Adkins · filed 2025-08-04(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 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 R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Lloyd · filed 2025-08-05

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 sentencing evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s.

State v. Thaler · filed 2025-08-07(G)(2)

Importantly, 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 and substitute its judgment about a sentence’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Ridenbaugh · filed 2025-08-25(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 felony sentence solely because it finds the sentence unsupported by the record under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Carpenter · filed 2025-07-21(G)(2)(b)

The Supreme Court of Ohio has further limited sentencing review by holding 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, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits review of a sentence allegedly based on impermissible considerations, but does not permit modification merely because the appellate court finds insufficient record support under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Maguire · filed 2025-09-22(G)(2)(b)

Our jurisdiction to review sentencing factors is limited under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). ... “Under that provision, the appellate court cannot 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, the appellate court is not prohibited from reviewing a sentence ‘when the claim is that the sentence was improperly imposed based on impermissible considerations.’”