seriousness and recidivism factors in Ohio

2026The Revised Code also does not require that the trial court “use specific language or make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors.” State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 (2000), citing R.C. 2929.12. {¶16} In this case, a presentence investigation was conducted by the trial court’s probation staff, and the resulting presentence report was reviewed by the trial judge and by counsel for both parties before the sentencing hearing.

2025The Revised Code also does not require that the trial court “use specific language or make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors.” State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 (2000), citing R.C. 2929.12. {¶9} In this case, a presentence investigation was conducted by the trial court’s probation staff, and the presentence report was reviewed by the trial judge and by counsel for both parties before the sentencing date.

2025“When sentencing a defendant, a court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Anderson, 2024-Ohio-1688, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Hodges, 2013-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.).

2015Cuyahoga No. 99511, 2013-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 . {¶69} Sutton argues that the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 or the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12 when it imposed the maximum sentence for the aggravated robbery and burglary offenses and ordered the aggravated robbery sentence to be served consecutively to Sutton’s sentence for felonious assault.

2026Id., citing State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 . {¶8} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2026ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING A CONSECUTIVE PRISON TERM WITHOUT MAKING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) AND WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF FELONY SENTENCING UNDER R.C. 2929.11 AND THE SERIOUSNESS AND RECIDIVISM FACTORS UNDER R.C. 2929.12. {¶26} In his third assignment of error, Mr. Eagle argues the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive sentences because the trial court did not make all the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and the trial court failed to properly weigh the purposes and principals of

2026A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post-release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.). {¶16} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2026A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post-release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.). {¶13} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2026A trial court’s imposition of a maximum prison term for a felony conviction is not contrary to law provided that “the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense, and the court considers both the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Keith, 2016-Ohio-5234, ¶ 10, 16 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.) (A court’s imposition of any prison term, even a maximum term, is not contrary to la

2026A trial court’s imposition of a maximum prison term for a felony conviction is not contrary to law provided that “the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense, and the court considers both the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Keith, 2016-Ohio-5234, ¶ 10, 16 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.) (A court’s imposition of any prison term, even a maximum term, is not contrary to la

2007Griffin and Katz, Ohio Felony Sentencing Law (2002 Ed.), § T 9.7 `Where a sentencing court fails to make findings required in R.C. 2929.13 or R.C. 2929.14 , fails to engage in the seriousness and recidivism analysis required under R.C. 2929.12 , or fails to set forth reasons when reasons are required in R.C. 2929.19 , the sentence is contrary to law.' Id. , at p. 779, citing State v. Edmonson , 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 1999-Ohio-110 .

2006Pursuant to R.C. 2929.13 (B)(2)(a), the trial court must impose a term of imprisonment if it: (1) finds the existence of any one of those nine factors; and (2) finds, after considering the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 , that a prison term is consistent with the purposes of and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 ; and (3) finds that the offender is not amenable to available community control sanctions. {¶ 7} Additionally, whenever the trial court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a fourth or fifth degree felony, whether based upon R.C. 2929.1

2020The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 18 , held that a sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court has considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, properly applied postrelease control, and imposed a sentence within the statutory range. {¶ 9} Miller was convicted of R.C. 2907.05(A)(5) and (C)(1), felonies of the fourth degree.

2020The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 18 , held that a sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court has considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, properly applied postrelease control, and imposed a sentence within the statutory range. {¶ 9} Miller was convicted of R.C. 2907.05(A)(5) and (C)(1), felonies of the fourth degree.

2026A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law if “the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies post-release control, and sentences a defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. A.H., 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.).

2025Under 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 (1) 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 (2) the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.” A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law if “the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.1

2026State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42 . {¶13} A sentence is not contrary to law where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, weighs the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, and imposes a sentence within the permissible statutory range.

2025He argues that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence that “did not advance the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11 and did not appropriately apply and weigh the seriousness and recidivism factors as outlined in R.C. 2929.12.” {¶ 3} For nearly five years, we have abided by the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729 , that we are prohibited, as a matter of law, from reviewing whether a trial court erred in its consideration of the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when it imposed sentence.

2026A trial court’s imposition of a maximum prison term for a felony conviction is not contrary to law provided that “the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense, and the court considers both the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Keith, 2016-Ohio-5234, ¶ 10, 16 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.) (A court’s imposition of any prison term, even a maximum term, is not contrary to la

2026A trial court’s imposition of a maximum prison term for a felony conviction is not contrary to law provided that “the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense, and the court considers both the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Keith, 2016-Ohio-5234, ¶ 10, 16 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.) (A court’s imposition of any prison term, even a maximum term, is not contrary to la

2018Foster, supra, at paragraph 7 of the syllabus. {¶18} At the sentencing hearing, and again in its sentencing entry, the trial court said it had considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. {¶19} With respect to the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12, the trial court noted the existence of factors in the present case that make the offense more serious.

2017See also State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 42 (R.C. 2929.12 instructs the court to “consider” the statutory factors; there is no mandate for judicial fact-finding within this general guidance statute). {¶37} Where the record is silent, we employ a rebuttable presumption the sentencing court considered the seriousness and recidivism factors.

2007Griffin and Katz, Ohio Felony Sentencing Law (2002 Ed.), § T 9.7 `Where a sentencing court fails to make findings required in R.C. 2929.13 or R.C. 2929.14 , fails to engage in the seriousness and recidivism analysis required under R.C. 2929.12 , or fails to set forth reasons when reasons are required in R.C. 2929.19 , the sentence is contrary to law.' Id. , at p. 779, citing State v. Edmonson , 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 1999-Ohio-110 .

2005Griffin and Katz, Ohio Felony Sentencing Law (2002 Ed.), § T 9.7 "Where a sentencing court fails to make findings required in R.C. 2929.13 or R.C. 2929.14 , fails to engage in the seriousness and recidivism analysis required under R.C. 2929.12 , or fails to set forth reasons when reasons are required in R.C. 2929.19 , the sentence is contrary to law." Id.,. , at p. 779, citing State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 1999-Ohio-110 . {¶ 9} The trial court did not follow the State's recommendation for community control sanctions with drug treatment.

2026Richland No. 17CA29, 2017-Ohio-8996 , ¶ 16: A trial court's imposition of a maximum prison term for a felony conviction is not contrary to law as long as the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense, and the court considers both the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth [in] R.C. 2929.12.

2021Richland No. 17CA29, 2017-Ohio-8996 , ¶ 16: A trial court's imposition of a maximum prison term for a felony conviction is not contrary to law as long as the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense, and the court considers both the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth [in] R.C. 2929.12.

2025We simply must determine whether those sentences are contrary to law.’” Id., quoting State v. Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). {¶33} In this case, the trial court determined that 12-month prison terms are consistent with the principles and purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.

2025State v. Mayfield, 2024-Ohio- 5844, ¶ 15 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.) A sentence is “contrary to law if it falls outside of the statutory range for the particular degree of offense; if the trial court failed to properly consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing as enumerated in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12; or if the trial court orders consecutive sentences and does not make the necessary consecutive sentence finding.” State v. Burkhart, 2019-Ohio-2711 , ¶ 12 (7th Dist.). {¶22} Although A

2022See also State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 , 2021-Ohio- 3531, 186 N.E.3d 784 (affirming based on Jones where the defendant argued the record did not support certain findings). {¶70} In any event, Appellant's sentence is clearly supported by the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2022See also State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 , 2021-Ohio- 3531, 186 N.E.3d 784 (affirming based on Jones where the defendant argued the record did not support certain findings). {¶70} In any event, Appellant's sentence is clearly supported by the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2022Instead, appellant argues that his sentence is contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) because the trial court failed to expressly state at the sentencing hearing that it considered the principles and purposes of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11, and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. {¶ 21} When sentencing a defendant, “the court must carefully consider the statutes that apply to every felony case,” including “R.C. 2929.11, which specifies the purposes of sentencing, and R.C. 2929.12, which provides guidance in considering factors relating to the seriousness of the offense

2022Instead, appellant argues that his sentence is contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) because the trial court failed to expressly state at the sentencing hearing that it considered the principles and purposes of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11, and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. {¶ 21} When sentencing a defendant, “the court must carefully consider the statutes that apply to every felony case,” including “R.C. 2929.11, which specifies the purposes of sentencing, and R.C. 2929.12, which provides guidance in considering factors relating to the seriousness of the offense

2021Id.; State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 , 525 N.E.2d 1361 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶30} Mr. Houk acknowledges that the trial court stated both at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry that it considered the purposes and principles of 7 Case No. 2021-L-077 sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and that it balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2021Id.; State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 , 525 N.E.2d 1361 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶30} Mr. Houk acknowledges that the trial court stated both at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry that it considered the purposes and principles of 7 Case No. 2021-L-077 sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and that it balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2024Similarly, nothing in R.C. 2929.12 requires a trial court to "use specific language or make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors." State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 2000-Ohio-302 .

2008Consequently, the trial court is not required to make specific findings on the record to "evince the requisite consideration of the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors." State v. Arnett , 88 Ohio St.3d 208 , 215 , 2000-Ohio-302 .

2026Id., citing State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 . {¶8} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2026Id., citing State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 . {¶9} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2008No. 06AP-690, 2007-Ohio-1941 , at ¶ 19 . {¶ 17} "[A]lthough a trial court is required to consider the seriousness and recidivism factors, the court does not `"need to make specific findings on the record in *Page 6 order to evince the requisite consideration of all applicable seriousness and recidivism factors."'" State v. Lewis , 11th Dist No. 2006-L-224, 2007-Ohio-3014 , at ¶ 24 .

2007No. 06AP-690, 2007-Ohio-1941 . {¶ 57} "Although a trial court is required to consider the seriousness and recidivism factors, the court does not `"need to make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of all applicable seriousness and recidivism factors."'" State v. Lewis , 11th Dist No. 2006-L-224, 2007-Ohio-3014 , at ¶ 24 .

2025“The fact that the trial court chose to weigh various sentencing factors differently than how appellant would have weighed them does not mean the trial court erred in imposing appellant’s sentence.” Id. -12- Case Nos. 5-24-27 and 5-24-28 {¶31} At Taylor’s sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entries, the trial court considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.

2024Butler No. CA2016-03-059, 2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 18 (“Although appellant disagrees with the trial court's analysis and its balancing of the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12, it is ‘[t]he trial court [that], in imposing a sentence, determines the weight afforded to any particular statutory factors, mitigating grounds, or other relevant circumstances’ ”). {¶56} Pierce has failed to meet her burden to establish that her prison sentence was clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

2021State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 22-23; State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225 , 997 N.E.2d 629 , ¶ 5 (1st Dist.). {¶7} Anderson contends that the imposed sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. {¶8} With respect to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, this court has long held that these are not fact-finding statutes, and that, absent an affirmative demonstration to the contrary, we will presume that the trial court co

2020See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b); State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio- 1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 23 (“[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence.”). {¶12} “[A] sentence [is] not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court * * * considered the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors contained in R.C. 2929.12, properly appli

2025A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post-release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Dinka, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36 (12th Dist.). {¶19} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

2024CA2019-03-022 & CA2019-03-026, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36 . {¶19} The judgment entry states the trial court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.