shall consider factors in Ohio

2019Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10 . {¶29} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.11(A), in effect at the time, the overriding purposes of felony sentencing include “protect[ing] the public from future crime by the offender and others,” and “punish[ing] the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes * * *.” Additionally, the sentence imposed shall be “commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.

2017Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10 . {¶12} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.11(A), the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing are “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others,” and “to punish the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes * * *.” Additionally, the sentence imposed shall be “commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B). {¶13} Furthermore, i

2025“In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors … relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors … relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism, and … may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.” Id.

2025Id.

2020When a sentence is imposed solely after consideration of the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, “[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.” Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , at ¶ 23.

2020When a sentence is imposed solely after consideration of the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, “[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.” Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , at ¶ 23.

2023The factors the trial court found relevant in this case were the recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12(D)(1), (2), and (4), which state: (1) At the time of committing the offense, the offender was under release from confinement before trial or sentencing * * * [or] was under post-release control pursuant to section 2967.28 or any other provision of the Revised Code for an earlier offense * * * . (2) The offender * * * has a history of criminal convictions. *** (4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that is related to the offense, and the offender refuses to acknowled

2023The factors the trial court found relevant in this case were the recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12(D)(1), (2), and (4), which state: (1) At the time of committing the offense, the offender was under release from confinement before trial or sentencing * * * [or] was under post-release control pursuant to section 2967.28 or any other provision of the Revised Code for an earlier offense * * * . (2) The offender * * * has a history of criminal convictions. *** (4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that is related to the offense, and the offender refuses to acknowled

2021R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c). {¶ 11} In appeals “involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)].’ ” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177 , 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28 . “[W]here a trial court properly makes the findings mandated by R.C. -7- 2929.14(C)(4), an appellate court may not reverse the

2021R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c). {¶ 11} In appeals “involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)].’ ” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177 , 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28 . “[W]here a trial court properly makes the findings mandated by R.C. -7- 2929.14(C)(4), an appellate court may not reverse the

2017Summit No. 26904, 2014-Ohio-3474, ¶ 6 , quoting R.C. 3105.18(C)(1).

2016Summit No. 26904, 2014-Ohio-3474, ¶ 6 , quoting R.C. 3105.18(C)(1).

2011In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.” {¶ 22} In Kalish, the Supreme Court also made clear that even after Foster, “where the trial court does not put on the record its consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, it is presumed th

2011In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.” {¶ 22} In Kalish, the Supreme Court also made clear that even after Foster, “where the trial court does not put on the record its consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, it is presumed th

2005The statute provides that the sentencing court "has discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing." R.C. 2929.12 (A). " In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender's recidivism and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing." Id. (emphasi

2005"In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender's recidivism and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing." Id. {¶ 25} Unlike the sentencing schemes at issue in Blakely , the sentencing judge in Ohio is not required to make any finding of fact, other than the fact of a prior conviction in support

2004A court reviewing "a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , at ¶ 10 ; R.C. 2953.08 (G). {¶ 58} When sentencing an offender and imposing a sentence, a trial court must follow the mandates of R.C. 2929.12 (A), which states: {¶ 59} "[In sentencing a felony offender] the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C)

2003In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender's recidivism and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing. {¶ 11} "(B) The sentencing court shall consider all of the following that apply regarding the offender, the offense, or the victim, and any other relevant factors, as indicating that the offe

2004Id.

2004Id.

2025“In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors . . . relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors . . . relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism, . . . and . . . may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.” Id.

2024In State v. Stewart, 2024-Ohio-1640 (4th Dist.), we wrote at ¶ 47: PICKAWAY, 24CA13 6 “Because both R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 require the trial court to consider the factors outlined in those two statutory provisions, * * * a trial court’s failure to consider the factors would render the sentence * * * ‘contrary to law.’ ” State v. Poole, 4th Dist.

2023The factors the trial court found relevant in this case were the recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12(D)(1), (2), and (4), which state: (1) At the time of committing the offense, the offender was under release from confinement before trial or sentencing * * * [or] was under post-release control pursuant to section 2967.28 or any other provision of the Revised Code for an earlier offense * * * . (2) The offender * * * has a history of criminal convictions. *** (4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that is related to the offense, and the offender refuses to acknowled

2023The factors the trial court found relevant in this case were the recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12(D)(1), (2), and (4), which state: (1) At the time of committing the offense, the offender was under release from confinement before trial or sentencing * * * [or] was under post-release control pursuant to section 2967.28 or any other provision of the Revised Code for an earlier offense * * * . (2) The offender * * * has a history of criminal convictions. *** (4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that is related to the offense, and the offender refuses to acknowled

2023In [Cite as State v. Dickinson, 2023-Ohio-3068 .] exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender's recidivism, and the factors set forth in division (F) of this section pertaining to the offender's service in the armed forces of the United States and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing. {¶43} R.C.

2022“In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in [R.C. 2929.12(B) and (C)] relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors provided in [R.C. 2929.12(D) and (E)] relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism, * * * and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.” Id. {¶ 40} And as stated in R.C. 2929.12(D)(5), when determining a defendant’s likelihood to commit future crimes, the trial court “shall” consider whether the defendant shows “no genuine remorse.” Conversely,

2022(Emphasis added.) {¶17} Because both R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 require the trial court to consider the factors outlined in those two statutory provisions, State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31, then a trial court’s failure to consider the factors would render the sentence “in violation of statute” and thus “contrary to law.” This was our established precedent prior to Jones and nothing in our interpretation of Jones requires us to abandon it.

2022(Emphasis added.) {¶17} Because both R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 require the trial court to consider the factors outlined in those two statutory provisions, State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31, then a trial court’s failure to consider the factors would render the sentence “in violation of statute” and thus “contrary to law.” This was our established precedent prior to Jones and nothing in our interpretation of Jones requires us to abandon it.

2021R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c). {¶ 11} In appeals “involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)].’ ” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177 , 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28 . “[W]here a trial court properly makes the findings mandated by R.C. -7- 2929.14(C)(4), an appellate court may not reverse the

2020“In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism, and the factors set forth in division (F) of this section pertaining to the offender’s service in the armed forces of the United States and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.” Id. {¶14} While the sentencing court is required to con

2020Lake No. 2007-L-218, 2008-Ohio-5856, ¶23 .

2014Portage No. 2011-P-0089, 2012-Ohio-3845, ¶ 18 , quoting State v. Webb, 11th Dist.

2013In re Slusser, 140 Ohio App.3d 480, 487 , 748 N.E.2d 105 (3d Dist.2000). {¶19} In sentencing an offender on a misdemeanor, the court shall consider the factors set out in R.C. 2929.22(B)(1): (a) The nature and circumstances of the offense or offenses; (b) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the offense or offenses indicate that the offender has a history of persistent criminal activity and that the offender's character and condition reveal a substantial risk that the offender will commit another offense; (c) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the offense or o

2013In re Slusser, 140 Ohio App.3d 480, 487 , 748 N.E.2d 105 (3d Dist.2000). {¶19} In sentencing an offender on a misdemeanor, the court shall consider the factors set out in R.C. 2929.22(B)(1): (a) The nature and circumstances of the offense or offenses; (b) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the offense or offenses indicate that the offender has a history of persistent criminal activity and that the offender's character and condition reveal a substantial risk that the offender will commit another offense; (c) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the offense or o

2012In exercising this discretion, the court shall consider the factors relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism, along with any other factors that are relevant to achieving the purposes and principles of sentencing. {¶ 18} In order for this court to find that the trial court abused its discretion, we must find that the court’s decision “is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Kalish at ¶ 19, quoting Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

2012In exercising this discretion, the court shall consider the factors relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism, along with any other factors that are relevant to achieving the purposes and principles of sentencing. {¶ 18} In order for this court to find that the trial court abused its discretion, we must find that the court’s decision “is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Kalish at ¶ 19, quoting Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

2011State v. Davis, Washington App. No. 09CA28, 2010-Ohio-555 . {¶ 19} R.C. 2929.12(A) mandates that, in exercising its “discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to addressing those purposes and principles of sentencing.” Accordingly, the trial court had discretion to consider additional factors, but only if tho

2011State v. Davis, Washington App. No. 09CA28, 2010-Ohio-555 . {¶ 19} R.C. 2929.12(A) mandates that, in exercising its “discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to addressing those purposes and principles of sentencing.” Accordingly, the trial court had discretion to consider additional factors, but only if tho