clear and convincing standard in Ohio

2026In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had sufficient evidence

2026In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient HIGHLAND, 25CA12 10 evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had

2026In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had sufficient evidence

2026In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient HIGHLAND, 25CA12 10 evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had

2026In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had sufficient evidence

2026In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient HIGHLAND, 25CA12 10 evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had

2026In re R.M., 2013-Ohio-3588, ¶ HIGHLAND, 25CA12 11 62 (4th Dist.); see also In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), quoting In re A.U., 2008-Ohio-187, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) (“A reviewing court will not overturn a court’s grant of permanent custody to the state as being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence ‘if the record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements . . . have been established.’”). {¶23} Once a reviewing court finishes its examination, the judgment may be reversed only if it a

2026In re R.M., 2013-Ohio-3588, ¶ 62 (4th Dist.); see also In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), quoting In re A.U., 2008-Ohio-187, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) (“A reviewing court will not overturn a court’s grant of permanent custody to the state as being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence ‘if the record contains competent, credible HIGHLAND, 25CA12 11 evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements . . . have been established.’”). {¶23} Once a reviewing court finishes its examination, the judgment may be reversed only if it a

2026In re R.M., 2013-Ohio-3588, ¶ HIGHLAND, 25CA12 11 62 (4th Dist.); see also In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), quoting In re A.U., 2008-Ohio-187, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) (“A reviewing court will not overturn a court’s grant of permanent custody to the state as being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence ‘if the record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements . . . have been established.’”). {¶23} Once a reviewing court finishes its examination, the judgment may be reversed only if it a

2026In re R.M., 2013-Ohio-3588, ¶ 62 (4th Dist.); see also In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), quoting In re A.U., 2008-Ohio-187, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) (“A reviewing court will not overturn a court’s grant of permanent custody to the state as being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence ‘if the record contains competent, credible HIGHLAND, 25CA12 11 evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements . . . have been established.’”). {¶23} Once a reviewing court finishes its examination, the judgment may be reversed only if it a

2020Id., citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶12} “‘Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [juvenile] court, the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy this burden of proof.’” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting In re Kinney, 1st Dist.

2016Schlee, supra, at *14-15; Thompkins, supra, at 387 . {¶52} Appellant’s second assignment of error is without merit. {¶53} In his third assignment of error, appellant maintains the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum sentence. {¶54} R.C. 2953.08(G) and the clear and convincing standard should be applied to determine whether a felony sentence is contrary to law.

2026In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had sufficient evidence

2026In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient HIGHLAND, 25CA12 10 evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had

2025In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 103-04 (1986). {¶20} In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the r

2025In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 103-04 (1986). {¶30} In determining whether a trial court based its decision upon clear and convincing evidence, “a reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1990); accord In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368 (1985), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (“Once the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the [trial] court, the reviewing court must examine the r

2026In re R.M., 2013-Ohio-3588, ¶ HIGHLAND, 25CA12 11 62 (4th Dist.); see also In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), quoting In re A.U., 2008-Ohio-187, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) (“A reviewing court will not overturn a court’s grant of permanent custody to the state as being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence ‘if the record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements . . . have been established.’”). {¶23} Once a reviewing court finishes its examination, the judgment may be reversed only if it a

2026In re R.M., 2013-Ohio-3588, ¶ 62 (4th Dist.); see also In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), quoting In re A.U., 2008-Ohio-187, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) (“A reviewing court will not overturn a court’s grant of permanent custody to the state as being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence ‘if the record contains competent, credible HIGHLAND, 25CA12 11 evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements . . . have been established.’”). {¶23} Once a reviewing court finishes its examination, the judgment may be reversed only if it a

2026In re R.M., 2013-Ohio-3588, ¶ HIGHLAND, 25CA12 11 62 (4th Dist.); see also In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), quoting In re A.U., 2008-Ohio-187, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) (“A reviewing court will not overturn a court’s grant of permanent custody to the state as being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence ‘if the record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements . . . have been established.’”). {¶23} Once a reviewing court finishes its examination, the judgment may be reversed only if it a

2015In re Savchuk, 180 Ohio App.3d 349 , 2008-Ohio-6877 , ¶28 * * * (11th Dist.) [(O’Toole, J., dissenting on other grounds)]. ‘Under this standard, when reviewing a claim that a judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh both the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created (* * *) a manifest miscarriage of justice (* * *).’ Id., citing State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 175 * * *(1st Dist.1983)

2020The clear-and-convincing standard requires a higher degree of proof than “a preponderance of the evidence,” but less than “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ingram, 82 Ohio App.3d 341, 346 , 612 N.E.2d 454 (1992).

2020The clear-and-convincing standard requires a higher degree of proof than “a preponderance of the evidence,” but less than “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ingram, 82 Ohio App.3d 341, 346 , 612 N.E.2d 454 (1992).

2008To meet the clear-and-convincing standard requires a higher degree of proof than `a preponderance of the evidence,' but less than `evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.' State v. Ingram (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 341 , 346 , 612 N.E.2d 454 ." Wilson at T|20. {¶ 20} In order to satisfy this standard, "there must be something of substance from which one could draw a logical conclusion concerning the likelihood of recidivism to reach a firm belief or conviction that the defendant is likely to commit a sexually oriented offense in the future." State v. Arthur (Aug. 16, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 77770. {¶

2008To meet the clear-and-convincing standard requires a higher degree of proof than `a preponderance of the evidence,' but less than `evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.' State v. Ingram (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 341 , 346 , 612 N.E.2d 454 ." Wilson at T|20. {¶ 20} In order to satisfy this standard, "there must be something of substance from which one could draw a logical conclusion concerning the likelihood of recidivism to reach a firm belief or conviction that the defendant is likely to commit a sexually oriented offense in the future." State v. Arthur (Aug. 16, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 77770. {¶

2008In State v. Burton , Franklin App. No. 06AP-690, 2007-Ohio-1941 , the appellate court noted that: "Foster 1 did not totally abrogate from Ohio's felony sentencing laws R.C. 2953.08 (G), which references the clear and convincing standard to felony sentencing appeals.

2008See, also, Burton , supra, at ¶ 19 (stating R.C. 2953.08 [G] requires appellate courts to continue to review felony sentences post- Foster under the clear and convincing standard); Price , supra, *Page 4 at ¶ 14 (stating an appellate court may take any action authorized by the statutory language if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence is otherwise contrary to law). {¶ 7} Within those parameters, defendant acknowledges the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , excised portions of the law requiring trial courts to set forth findings and reasons for

2002In re Adoption of Holcomb (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 361 , 368 and In re Ball (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 56 , 58 .

2001See In re Adoption of Holcomb (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 361 , and In re Ball (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 56 .

2025In re S.D. at ¶ 12. {¶49} When reviewing a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, we “weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [juvenile] court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” In re A.B., 2015-Ohio-3247, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.), citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 12.

2025In re S.D. at ¶ 12. {¶49} When reviewing a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, we “weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [juvenile] court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” In re A.B., 2015-Ohio-3247, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.), citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 12 .

2026Id. at ¶ 85, citing Blanton at ¶ 31 , and Glover at ¶ 45 . “ ‘The plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court’s consecutive- sentence findings and the trial court’s findings must be upheld unless those findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.’ ” State v. Hurst, 2024-Ohio-5544 , ¶ 16, quoting State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5 (lead opinion). “ ‘The clear-and-convincing standard for appellate review of R.C.

2026“The negative constructions in both statutes combined with the clear-and-convincing standard constrain the appellate court’s review of a trial court’s proportionality finding.” Id. {¶ 51} In this case, we cannot say that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of Bryant’s conduct.

2008Id. at ¶ 37, citing State v. Windham , Wayne App. No. 05CA0033, 2006-Ohio-1544 at ¶ 11 .

2007No. 05CA0033, 2006-Ohio-1544 , ¶¶ 7 , 11 (finding that "The Foster Court's removal of R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) from the statutory sentencing scheme eliminated the clear and convincing standard and left a void concerning the applicable standard of review in sentencing matters" and holding that the abuse of discretion standard now applies); State v. Firouzmandi , 5th Dist.

2004Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that "will provide in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established." Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Massengale (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 121 , 122 , quoting Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 39} When sentencing a felony offender, a trial court must consider the overriding purposes of felony sentencing, which are namely to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender.

1999"An appellate court in reviewing a finding that the appellant is a sexual predator `must examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the clear and convincing standard.'" State v. Sturgill (May 4, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-979, unreported (1999 Opinions 1043, 1047) , quoting State v. Johnson (Sept. 24, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97APA12-1585, unreported (1998 Opinions 4551, 4558). * * * Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, but not to the extent of suc

2018Thus, applying the plain language of that statute, the Supreme Court held that “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and 3 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.” Id. {¶14} The clear and convincing standard in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is highly deferential as the standard is written in the negative.

2017Bd. , 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993) ("Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, a court of appeals may not substitute its judgment for those of the * * * trial court."); Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , at ¶ 1. {¶ 38} In the next paragraph of Venes , we then stated at ¶ 21: It is also important to understand that the clear and convincing standard used by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is written in the negative.

2017Bd. , 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993) ("Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, a court of appeals may not substitute its judgment for those of the * * * trial court."); Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , at ¶ 1. {¶ 38} In the next paragraph of Venes , we then stated at ¶ 21: It is also important to understand that the clear and convincing standard used by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is written in the negative.

2017Bd. , 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993) ("Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, a court of appeals may not substitute its judgment for those of the * * * trial court."); Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , at ¶ 1. {¶ 38} In the next paragraph of Venes , we then stated at ¶ 21: It is also important to understand that the clear and convincing standard used by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is written in the negative.