Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.08

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

State v. Venters · filed 2025-09-02(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) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about whether a sentence complies with the purposes and factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Marshall · filed 2025-09-11(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]." State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing individual sentences.

State v. Karpovitch · filed 2025-09-15(G)(2)

Mindful that, as a reviewing court, we are not permitted to independently weigh the evidence and/or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court as it relates to individual sentences, we do not hesitate to find that the record in the present case supports the aggregate sentence imposed.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh a sentencing court’s consideration of mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Dukett · filed 2025-09-16(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, Dukett’s assignment of error may be summarily denied.

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

State v. Gochenour · filed 2025-09-22(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 permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the sentencing court’s on compliance with felony sentencing factors.

State v. Thomas · filed 2025-09-29(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 authorize an appellate court to reweigh sentencing factors to decide whether a trial court should have overcome the presumption of prison and imposed community control.

State v. Michalski · filed 2025-09-29(G)(2)

Appellant’s assignment of error asks this Court to review whether the trial court ought to have overcome the presumption of incarceration and make the findings in R.C. 2929.13(D)(2)(a) and (b). However, R.C. 2953.08 “specifically precludes review of the imposed sentence.” Id. at ¶ 8. This is because nothing in that statute “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, 2020-Ohio-6729, at ¶ 42.

When a sentencing challenge does not concern findings under the statutes listed in § 2953.08(G)(2), appellate review asks only whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

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

The sentencing issue raised by Hayes does not relate to any of the relevant statutes listed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), so we are tasked with determining only whether his mandatory prison sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Fisher · filed 2025-09-22(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 authorize an appellate court to reverse a sentence based on how the trial court weighed the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Miller · filed 2025-11-17(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 allow an appellate court to modify a sentence merely because it finds the sentence unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

State v. Bailey · filed 2025-11-21(G)(2)

Ohio appellate courts lack authority to vacate or modify sentences simply because they believe that, under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the sentence is not supported by the record.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not authorize an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its own weighing of the considerations in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Barnett · filed 2025-10-15(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. ... The trial court did not err in imposing the sentence upon the appellant, and we find no basis for concluding that the trial court’s decision is contrary to law.

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

State v. Kittle · filed 2025-10-20(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) does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about whether a sentence reflects the purposes and factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Perez · filed 2025-10-23(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 "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) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its sentencing judgment for the trial court’s.

State v. Chatman · filed 2025-10-23(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 evidence when reviewing a sentence for compliance with sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Talbert · filed 2025-10-27(G)(2)

The Court clarified 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.” Id. at ¶ 42. Thus, appellate review of the sentencing factors is very limited and we may not reweigh the findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate review of felony sentences: an appellate court may not independently reweigh the sentencing factors or substitute its judgment for the trial court’s.

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

The Court clarified 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.” Id. at ¶ 42. Thus, appellate review of the sentencing factors is very limited and we may not reweigh the findings.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a consecutive sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings or that the sentence is contrary to law; it does not permit the court to substitute its preferred sentence.

State v. Hubert · filed 2025-11-03(G)(2)

Finally, whether consecutive sentences in this case “reflect[] an overemphasis on punishment” instead of “public protection” is beyond our limited scope of review. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) “does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its view of an appropriate sentence for that of the trial court.” Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, at ¶ 44. “An appellate court’s inquiry is limited to a review of the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C) findings.” Id. “Only when the court of appeals concludes that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings or it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law is it permitted to modify the trial court’s sentence.” Id.

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

State v. Hayes · filed 2025-11-12(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) limits appellate review of sentencing factors and does not authorize an appellate court to independently weigh mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12.

State v. Pace · filed 2025-11-24(G)(2)(b)

Our jurisdiction to review the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is limited under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). ... However, we are without any authority to independently weigh mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12, Jones at ¶ 42, and the trial court fulfilled its duty in this regard by stating at sentencing and in its judgment entry that it had considered all factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

State v. Hall · filed 2025-11-24(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) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the record and substitute its judgment about which sentence best reflects the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Gohring · filed 2025-12-04(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 "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)(a) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the record fails to support the trial court’s analysis under R.C. 2929.12.

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

We note that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) “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. 2929.12.

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. 2929.12.

State v. Martinez-Rios · filed 2025-10-20(G)(2)

Martinez-Rios’ concern with the court’s weighing of the factors is an issue we cannot consider on appeal. “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. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because it believes the record does not support the trial court’s assessment of the seriousness and recidivism factors.

State v. Davis · filed 2026-01-09(G)(2)

Rather, we apply the standards found in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). That statute does not permit us to modify or vacate a sentence based on a belief that the sentence is unsupported by the “seriousness” and “recidivism” factors found in R.C. 2929.12(A) through (D).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit 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. Hookfin · filed 2025-12-12(G)(2)(b)

When reviewing felony sentences, we must apply the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G). ... 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.

Section 2953.08 does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment about which felony sentence best complies with sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Renne · filed 2025-12-30

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) limits appellate review of a felony sentence to whether it is contrary to law and bars the appellate court from substituting its judgment for the sentencing court’s under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

Therefore, a reviewing court is limited to a “contrary to law” analysis as R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) prohibits any substitution of judgment to conform with the provisions of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit independent appellate review of a trial court’s determinations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Grover · filed 2026-01-13(G)(2)

Furthermore, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit independent review of a trial court’s determinations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits appellate review of a felony sentence allegedly based on considerations outside the statutory sentencing factors.

State v. Janosky · filed 2026-01-20(G)(2)

However, an appellate court is not prohibited from reviewing a sentence "when the claim is 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." Bryant at ¶ 22.

When none of the findings listed in subsection (G)(2)(a) are at issue, appellate review is limited to whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Brooks · filed 2026-01-26(G)(2)(b)

This is because, pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), when none of the enumerated statutes under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) are at issue, we may determine only whether the trial court's sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08 does not permit an appellate court to independently reweigh the record and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s when reviewing compliance with sentencing factors.

State v. Trager · filed 2026-01-28

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 trial court’s consideration of sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12.

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

We emphasize that this court cannot review the trial court’s weighing of these factors on appeal.

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. Archie · filed 2025-12-15(G)(2)(b)

Accordingly, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) . . . does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Jones at ¶ 30.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow 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. Kynard · filed 2026-03-06(G)(2)

However, since the Ohio Supreme Court decided Jones, the law governing appellate review of a trial court's consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing a sentence is clear: 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) permits reversal of a felony sentence when clear and convincing evidence shows that specified findings lack record support or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law; it does not permit reweighing the trial court’s consideration of sentencing factors.

State v. Ochier · filed 2026-04-06(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.” State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002. ... 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 review whether the record supports a prison term or whether the trial court properly considered the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Smalley · filed 2024-09-16(G)(2)

Accordingly, this Court may not review an appellant’s argument that (1) the record does not support the imposition of a prison sanction, or (2) the trial court failed to properly consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08 does not authorize appellate review of whether the record supports a prison sanction or whether the trial court properly considered the factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Boyd · filed 2025-08-11(G)(2)

This Court is unable to review Boyd’s arguments. ... R.C. 2953.08 does not authorize a review of that kind.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to modify a felony sentence by reweighing the trial court’s R.C. 2929.11 considerations.

State v. Alexander · filed 2022-07-15(G)(2)

Thus, in accordance with the Ohio Supreme Court decisions set forth in Jones and Toles, we find that the legal premise submitted in support of appellant’s third assignment of error, asserting that the underlying felony sentence in this case should be modified pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) based upon a review by this court of the trial court’s R.C. 2929.11 considerations, is directly counter to the above-discussed governing statutes and precedent and is, therefore, without merit.

An improper seriousness finding does not require reversal under § 2953.08(G)(2) when the sentence is otherwise supported by the record and is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. McBee · filed 2019-07-22(G)(2)

Accordingly, the court’s “serious physical harm” finding is harmless here because imposition of the maximum allowable prison term is otherwise supported by the record and is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and Crim.R. 52(A).

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires an appellant claiming a felony sentence is contrary to law to show the error by clear and convincing evidence.

State v. Beckley · filed 2019-08-02(G)(2)(b)

Again, appellant bears the burden of identifying clear and convincing evidence the sentence imposed was contrary to law. ... Appellant identifies no evidence to support his contention and fails to satisfy his burden as established in R.C. 2953.08(G).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires a felony-sentence appellant to identify clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Harris · filed 2019-11-15(G)(2)

Appellant bears the burden of identifying clear and convincing evidence the sentence imposed was contrary to law.

A defendant challenging a felony sentence must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is contrary to law or that the record does not support the specified findings.

State v. Daniels · filed 2023-06-13(G)(2)

A defendant bears the burden to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a sentence is either contrary to law or that the record does not support the specified findings.

Section 2953.08 sets the standards of proof for appeals involving felony sentences.

State v. McCauley, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2003) · filed 2003-06-19

Although this case is subject to the standards of proof stated in R.C. 2953.08 rather than R.C. 2929.18 (B)(1), the standards concerning waiver of mandatory fines are instructive here.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) requires clear and convincing evidence to support the findings underlying a felony sentence on appellate review.

State v. Mason, L-06-1404 (9-30-2008) · filed 2008-09-30(G)(2)(b)

The finding that a criminal defendant has the ability to pay court-appointed counsel's costs must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2)(b); State v. John , 6th Dist. No. L-03-1261, 2005-Ohio-1218 , ¶ 29, reversed on other grounds by In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases (2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 313 , 2006-Ohio-2109 , following State v. Foster (2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 .

Section 2953.08(D)(3) excludes sentences for aggravated murder or murder imposed under sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 from appellate review under this section.

State v. Geran · filed 2019-08-26(D)(3)

According to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), "a sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 of the Revised Code is not subject to review under this section."

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

State v. Johnson · filed 2019-11-27(D)(3)

By enacting R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), the legislature removed our authority to review sentences imposed for aggravated murder and murder.

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

State v. Stone · filed 2021-07-08(D)(3)

Because Stone’s sentence was imposed for his conviction for aggravated murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), it is not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing instead of directing the trial court to impose a prison term.

State v. Will · filed 2019-09-26(G)(2)

Though appellant asks this court to remand the matter with instructions to impose a prison term, R.C. 2953.08 gives this court the option to vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence and remand for resentencing when it clearly and convincingly determines that the record does not support the trial court’s findings or the sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Metz · filed 2019-10-03(G)(2)

After reviewing the entire record, if we clearly and convincingly determine that the “record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” then we have the authority to “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.”

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to modify a felony sentencing entry to correct a restitution calculation error without remanding.

State v. Perez · filed 2019-12-24(G)(2)

Rather than remand this matter, we modify the trial court's resentencing entry, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), to reflect that appellant shall pay restitution in the amount of $4,057.

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

State v. Bursley · filed 2021-05-07(G)(2)

Since the trial court imposed a mandatory prison term for Count 1 when a mandatory term was not authorized by statute, we find the trial court erred and appellant’s sentence is contrary to law. ... Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand this matter for resentencing in accordance with this decision.

Section 2953.08 permits an appellate court to vacate an appealed felony sentence and remand for resentencing.

State v. Coppa · filed 2021-12-27(G)(2)(b)

When a sentence is appealed under R.C. 2953.08, the appellate court may increase, reduce, otherwise modify the sentence, or vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. In this case, we find the appropriate remedy is to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

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

State v. Gordon · filed 2022-02-07(G)(2)

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.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate court to vacate an unlawful sentence in its entirety and remand for resentencing.

State v. Kavanagh · filed 2021-12-13(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) grants appellate courts the authority to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed or vacate the sentence and remand to the trial court sentences that are contrary to law. ... For the same reasons, we elect to vacate the entirety of the trial court’s sentence in this case.

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

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

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing if it “clearly and convincingly finds” that the “sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

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

State v. Hoy · filed 2024-04-23(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the [trial] court for resentencing” if we clearly and convincingly find either “[t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under * * * [division] (C)(4) of section 2929.14” or “[t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” ... Accordingly, we sustain Mr. Hoy’s assignment of error, vacate his consecutive sentences, and remand for resentencing.

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

State v. Thompson · filed 2024-08-21(G)(2)(b)

An appellate court may “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence . . . or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for sentencing” if the sentence is “contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). ... We sustain Thompson’s second assignment of error, reverse Thompson’s sentence for the obstructing-official-business conviction, and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing on that conviction.

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

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

“The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under [R.C. 2953.08] or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” “if it clearly and convincingly finds” that the record does not support certain findings by the sentencing court, including consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or “[t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). ... Because the trial court failed to make all the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing, we clearly and convincingly find that the order of consecutive sentences is contrary to law. Conn at ¶ 29. Accordingly, we sustain the second assignment of error, vacate Pettiford's sentence and remand the case for the limited purpose of resentencing him.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)’s contrary-to-law review standard does not apply to challenges to court costs.

State v. Thompson · filed 2020-03-02(G)(2)

Consequently, it would be inappropriate for this court to apply the contrary-to-law standard found in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to the facts before us.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) calls for reviewing the imposition of confinement and supervision costs for whether it was contrary to law.

State v. Fisher · filed 2023-06-23(G)(2)(b)

“Our standard of review on this issue is whether the imposition of costs was contrary to law.” State v. Ivey, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1243, 2021-Ohio-2138, ¶ 7, citing R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b).

Section 2953.08 provides for appellate review of a challenge to felony sentencing costs to determine whether imposing them was contrary to law.

State v. Ali · filed 2024-02-09(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

This court reviews a challenge to the imposition of costs under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b) to determine whether it was contrary to law to impose such costs.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) allows reversal of imposed costs only when their imposition is contrary to law.

State v. De La Rosa · filed 2025-07-08(G)(2)(b)

We review a trial court’s imposition of costs under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), and will not reverse unless we find that imposition was contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 provides for appellate review of a challenge to sentencing costs under the clearly and convincingly contrary to law standard.

State v. Williams · filed 2025-12-12(A)(4), (G)(2)(b)

This court reviews a challenge to the imposition of costs under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b) to determine whether it was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08 does not govern review of appointed counsel costs because those costs are not part of a felony sentence.

State v. Clements · filed 2026-05-01

The Ohio Supreme Court clarified in State v. Taylor, 2020-Ohio-6786, ¶ 32, that although costs of appointed counsel may be imposed at sentencing, they are not part of a defendant’s sentence. As such, “we do not review the issue under R.C. 2953.08 for appeals based on felony sentencing.”

Section 2953.08 does not govern review of appointed-counsel fees because those fees are not part of a felony sentence.

State v. Heier · filed 2026-05-29

Because the assessment of these fees is not part of a defendant’s sentence, “we do not review the issue under R.C. 2953.08 for appeals based on felony sentencing.” State v. Radabaugh, 2024-Ohio-5640, ¶ 79 (3d Dist.), appeal not allowed, 2025-Ohio-231. Rather, we employ an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.

Section 2953.08(A)(4)'s remedy for appealing a sentence contrary to law does not apply to offenses committed before July 1, 1996.

State v. Sistrunk · filed 2020-04-10(A)(4)

Sistrunk committed his aggravated burglary offense before Senate Bill 2's July 1, 1996 effective date. ... The remedy set forth in R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) is therefore not applicable in Sistrunk's case.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of a driver's license suspension imposed as part of a felony sentence.

State v. Howard · filed 2020-06-08(G)(2)

Like most aspects of a felony sentence, the imposition of a driver's license suspension is subject to review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate review of a trial court’s suspension of a driver’s license as part of a felony sentence.

State v. Morgan · filed 2025-09-30(G)(2)

An appellate court reviews a trial court’s suspension of a driver’s license under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to overturn a felony sentence; when the appellate record lacks a PSI the trial court relied on, the reviewing court cannot determine that the sentence is contrary to law.

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

The information contained in the PSI was specifically relied upon by the trial court, and without the context it might provide we cannot conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record the sentences are contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to conclude that a felony sentence is contrary to law; an incomplete record may prevent that conclusion.

State v. Davis · filed 2021-05-26(G)(2)

Without the context the PSI might provide, we cannot conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record the sentence is contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(B)(2) permits the state to cross-appeal a felony sentence it argues is contrary to law.

State v. Chears · filed 2022-03-18(B)(2)

Because the prosecution essentially argues the trial court’s sentence is contrary to law, we find this cross-appeal was filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(B)(2).

Section 2953.08 does not preclude an appeal challenging a sentence on constitutional grounds.

State v. Boatman · filed 2022-04-08

Likewise, R.C. 2953.08 does not preclude an appeal of a sentence on constitutional grounds.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar a constitutional challenge to a sentence even when the trial court adopted a joint sentencing recommendation.

State v. Hartline · filed 2022-08-29(D)(1)

Because we have concluded that Hartline’s constitutional challenge to her sentence is not barred by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), we now turn to the record to determine if Hartline raised her constitutional arguments in the trial court and the appropriate standard of review.

Section 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar a constitutional challenge to an agreed sentence.

State v. Foster · filed 2023-05-15(D)(1)

Because Foster’s constitutional challenge to his sentence is not barred by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), we may consider his argument with respect to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law.

Section 2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude appellate review of a constitutional challenge to a sentence for murder or aggravated murder.

State ex rel. Romine v. McIntosh (Slip Opinion) · filed 2020-12-23(D)(3)

And as we recently held in State v. Patrick, R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court’s review of a constitutional challenge to a sentence for murder or aggravated murder.

Section 2953.08(A) permits an appeal of a sentence as of right in defined circumstances, but does not authorize successive appeals.

State v. Dixon · filed 2022-06-17(A)

Dixon also makes reference to R.C. 2953.08(A) which provides that a defendant may appeal his sentence, as a matter of right, under certain defined circumstances. Even if this statute provided for successive appeals, which it does not, we note Dixon has already filed a direct appeal and at least five post-conviction appeals arguing defects in his sentence including the failure to merge allied offenses. Therefore, we conclude this statute does not provide him with a basis for relief.

Section 2953.08(D)(3)'s limit on appellate sentencing review for murder and aggravated murder is constitutional and does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

State v. Gardner · filed 2022-08-08(D)(3)

Despite Gardner's arguments, this court and our sister district have determined that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is constitutional and does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not authorize an appellate court to reverse a felony sentence because the record does not support the trial court’s application of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Toler · filed 2022-08-22(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)(b) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence merely because it disagrees with how the record supports the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Truss · filed 2022-10-28(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)(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. Worden · filed 2022-12-21(G)(2)(b)

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) 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. Survilla · filed 2023-01-30(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)(b) does not allow 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. Corbett · filed 2023-02-24(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 permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence merely because it disagrees with how the trial court weighed the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Carter · filed 2023-03-15(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 the record does not support the trial court's assessment of the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Goddard · filed 2023-05-22(G)(2)

As such, we lack the authority to modify or vacate Goddard's sentence based on Goddard's argument that the sentence was not supported by 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 reweigh the record under the sentencing purposes and factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

To the extent that McClelland is asking this Court to reweigh the evidence, we must decline.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the record to decide whether prison should have been imposed instead of community control.

State v. Harvey · filed 2024-02-26(G)(2)(b)

Appellant’s argument essentially asks this Court to review whether the record supported the trial court's decision to impose a prison term rather than a community control sanction, which this Court is not permitted to do.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit an appellate court to vacate a sentence for lack of record support for findings under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Amero · filed 2024-03-18(G)(2)(a)

Firstly, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not allow an appellate court to vacate a sentence based on lack of support in the record for a trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, and Ms. Amero has failed to demonstrate the trial court did not consider the statutory factors.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not authorize 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. Call · filed 2024-05-20(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)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because it finds the record does not support the sentencing factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Howze · filed 2024-07-17(G)(2)(b)

Section 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.” ... Under Jones, this Court cannot undertake a review of this kind.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) 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. Hughes · filed 2025-03-12(G)(2)

Moreover, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) 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.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reweigh the trial court’s consideration of the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

This is because R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among the statutes listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

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

State v. Cunningham · filed 2026-05-06

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 that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) limits when an appellate court may modify or vacate a felony sentence and does not permit it to reweigh the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Anderson · filed 2021-02-03(G)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we may modify or vacate a defendant’s sentence only if we clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes (specifically division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code) or that the sentence is ... contrary to law.

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. Evans · filed 2023-10-06(G)(2)

Thus, 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.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not allow an appellate court to change a sentence merely because it views the record differently under Sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Ward · filed 2021-10-04(G)(2)(b)

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

Section 2953.08(D)(3)’s bar on appellate review of a murder sentence does not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.

State v. Lipkins · filed 2023-04-10(D)(3)

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently issued its opinion affirming the Twelfth District Court of Appeals decision that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) was constitutional. State v. Grevious, 2022-Ohio-4361, ¶ 1, so we find that Grevious does not support Lipkins’ assertions, but instead confirms our holding in Nelson.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to vacate a felony sentence for lack of record support for findings under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12 or to reweigh those sentencing factors.

State v. McWilson · filed 2022-01-24(G)(2)

The Ohio Supreme Court has recently clarified the application of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) in relation to R.C. 2929.11 and .12 and held that it does not allow an appellate court to vacate a sentence based on “lack of support in the record for a trial court’s findings” or to “independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 29 and 42.

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

State v. Allen · filed 2022-01-31(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(G)(2)(a) limits appellate review of specified felony sentencing findings to whether the record clearly and convincingly supports them.

State v. Mincer · filed 2018-12-21(G)(2)(a)

Our standard of review is limited by statute to the issue of whether clear and convincing evidence in the record supports 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) and whether the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22-23.

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

State v. Hart · filed 2020-04-21(G)(2)

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

State v. Gannon · filed 2021-02-22(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 reweigh the sentencing evidence and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Pettorini · filed 2021-04-29(G)(2)

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

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not 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. Daniels · filed 2021-11-19(G)(2)

A plurality of the Court in Jones noted nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. ... Turning to appellant's argument, we are foreclosed from weighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for that of the trial court in determining whether ... the sentence complies with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

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

State v. Sickels · filed 2023-03-31(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.” Jones at ¶ 42. We conclude that the trial court made appropriate findings in its journal entry under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Sickels’ sentence also is not contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not cover challenges based on the sentencing factors in sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Foster · filed 2024-03-04(G)(2)(a)

However, division (G)(2)(a) of that statute only applies to challenges to sentences imposed under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), and R.C. 2929.20(I). Appellant’s R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 challenges are not ... proper under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

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

State v. Vickers · filed 2024-03-25(G)(2)

Further, to the extent that Vickers may take issue with the weight the court gave the individual seriousness and recidivism factors, this court cannot second-guess or ... weigh the evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that its sentences are in compliance with R.C. 2929.12. “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)(a) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a felony sentence because the record does not support findings under R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(b), 2929.11, or 2929.12.

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

Importantly, the Supreme Court of Ohio has directed Ohio’s courts of appeal that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence if “we ‘clearly and convincingly find[ ] that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under” certain specified statutory provisions.’” (Emphasis added.) State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-2565, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.), quoting Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, at ¶ 28, quoting R.C. 2953.08(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. 2921.331(C)(5)(b), 2929.11, or 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to vacate or modify a sentence based on an incorrect finding that the offender acted in organized criminal activity.

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

The court made the other finding challenged by Wagner, that he “was acting in an organized criminal activity,” in connection with Case No. 2018-CR-406, in which Wagner was convicted of second degree felonies. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the finding—even if incorrect—would not provide a basis to vacate or modify Wagner’s sentences.

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

State v. Jeffers · filed 2025-03-21(G)

We may not independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

State v. Angel · filed 2022-01-13(G)(2)

The Ohio Supreme Court has made clear, however, that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not provide a basis for an 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 or 2929.12.

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

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

The Ohio Supreme Court has made clear, however, that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not provide a basis for an 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 or 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 felony sentence complies with sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

The Jones Court did not overrule Marcum but clarified dicta to reflect that “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the ... trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Jones, supra, at ¶ 42.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(a) 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. Mullins · filed 2024-02-07(G)(2)(a)

“The Ohio Supreme Court has held 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 2929.12 because [those statutes] are not among the statutes listed in the provision.’ ”

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

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

As stated by the Ohio Supreme 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.” ... We also find that even if the record had been preserved, appellant’s argument would fail, given that the trial court imposed a sentence within the statutory ... limits reasonably calculated to achieve the principles and purposes of sentencing and was not based on considerations that fall outside those that are contained in R. C. 2929.11 and R. C. 2929.12.

Section 2953.08(G)(2) permits appellate review of consecutive sentencing but does not allow a court to modify a sentence based on its view that the record does not support it under sections 2929.11 and 2929.12.

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

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)(b) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence solely because it finds the record does not support the trial court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

State v. Stephens · filed 2025-04-14(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. ... As the trial court gave consideration to the applicable sentencing factors and because the prison sentence imposed is within the statutory range of sentencing options, the sentence in this case is supported by the record and is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Section 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not make a sentence contrary to law merely because the record does not support it under Sections 2929.11 or 2929.12.

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

Next, the Ohio Supreme Court has also held that a sentence is not “otherwise contrary to law” under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) just because the record does not support a sentence under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.

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

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

With respect to subdivision (b) of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “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).” Jones at ¶ 34; see also Johnson at ¶ 12.

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

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

In State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42, the Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an “appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” ... Because appellant’s assigned error involves the trial court’s consideration of a factor that falls squarely within R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, he has not ... alleged any error that is subject to review by this court, and we find that the State is entitled to have judgment entered in its favor as a matter of law pursuant to App.R. 12(B).

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. Slife · filed 2025-01-27(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.