Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 181
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 181.24 (2026)

Comprehensive criminal sentencing structure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 23, 2000
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 107 - 123rd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No later than July 1, 1993, the state criminal sentencing commission shall recommend to the general assembly a comprehensive criminal sentencing structure for the state that is consistent with the sentencing policy developed pursuant to division (B) of section 181.23 of the Revised Code and the conclusions of the study conducted pursuant to division (A) of that section. The sentencing structure shall be designed to enhance public safety, to assist in the management of prison overcrowding and correctional resources, to simplify the sentencing structure of the state that is in existence on August 22, 1990, and to result in a new sentencing structure that is readily understandable by the citizens of the state, to simplify the criminal code of the state, to assure proportionality, uniformity, and other fairness in criminal sentencing, and to provide increased certainty in criminal sentencing.

(B) The comprehensive criminal sentencing structure recommended by the commission shall provide for all of the following:

(1) Proportionate sentences, with increased penalties for offenses based upon the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history of the offender;

(2) Procedures for ensuring that the penalty imposed for a criminal offense upon similar offenders is uniform in all jurisdictions in the state;

(3) Retention of reasonable judicial discretion within established limits that are consistent with the goals of the overall criminal sentencing structure;

(4) Procedures for matching criminal penalties with the available correctional facilities, programs, and services;

(5) A structure and procedures that control the use and duration of a full range of sentencing options that is consistent with public safety, including, but not limited to, long terms of imprisonment, probation, fines, and other sanctions that do not involve incarceration;

(6) Appropriate reasons for judicial discretion in departing from the general sentencing structure.

(C) The commission shall project the impact of all aspects of the comprehensive criminal sentencing structure upon the capacities of existing correctional facilities. It also shall project the effect of parole release patterns and patterns of release from regional and local jails, workhouses, and other correctional facilities upon the sentencing structure. Additionally, the commission shall determine whether any additional correctional facilities are necessary to implement the sentencing structure.

(D) The commission shall determine whether any special appellate procedures are necessary for reviewing departures from, or the misapplication of, the general sentencing structure recommended pursuant to this section.

(E) The commission shall submit a draft version of the comprehensive criminal sentencing structure to selected judges, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, law enforcement officials, correctional officials, bar associations, and other persons with experience or expertise in criminal sentencing and solicit their comments on the draft.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: State v. Comer, 793 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Comer, 793 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio 2003). · cites it 4× “None of the provisions of R.C. 181.24 can reasonably be construed as intended to confer substantive rights on offenders.”
State v. Jones, 2024 Ohio 1083 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 4× “” R.C. 181.24(A). Part of that command required the commission to “determine whether any special appellate procedures [were] 2.”
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St. 3d 21 (Ohio 2004). “2d 250, ¶ 10 ; see, also, R.C. 181.24. The law now makes sentencing a more complex task and requires a court to make findings when it exercises its discretion to impose the maximum sentence, consecutive sentences, or more than the minimum sentence.”
State v. Venes, 2013 Ohio 1891 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “See R.C. 181.24 (creating criminal sentencing commission to design sentencing structure “to assist in the management of prison overcrowding and correctional resources”).”
Woods v. Telb, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio 2000). “” R.C. 181.24(A). As part of the Sentencing Commission’s recommendations, the first comprehensive revision of Ohio’s Criminal Code since 1974, Am.”
State v. Beverly, 2016 Ohio 8078 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See R.C. 181.24; A Plan for Felony Sentencing in Ohio: A Formal Report of the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission (July 1, 1993).”
Woods v. Telb, 2000 Ohio 171 (Ohio 2000). “” R.C. 181.24(A). {¶ 13} As part of the Sentencing Commission’s recommendations, the first comprehensive revision of Ohio’s Criminal Code since 1974, Am.”
State v. Evans, 809 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio 2004). “See R.C. 181.24(A), directing a revision of Ohio’s sentencing structure to achieve uniformity, which revision resulted in the enactment of R.”
State v. Koeser, 2013 Ohio 5838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “See R.C. 181.24 (creating criminal sentencing commission to design sentencing structure ‘to assist in the management of prison overcrowding and correctional resources’).”
State ex rel. Ohioans for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 2023 Ohio 3325 (Ohio 2023). “, R.C. 181.24(A) (Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission shall recommend a sentencing structure “that is readily understandable by the citizens of the state”); R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 181.24(A) — 6 cases
State v. Comer, 793 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio 2003). “None of the provisions of R.C. 181.24 can reasonably be construed as intended to confer substantive rights on offenders.”
State v. Jones, 2024 Ohio 1083 (Ohio 2024). “” R.C. 181.24(A). Part of that command required the commission to “determine whether any special appellate procedures [were] 2.”
Woods v. Telb, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio 2000). “” R.C. 181.24(A). As part of the Sentencing Commission’s recommendations, the first comprehensive revision of Ohio’s Criminal Code since 1974, Am.”
Woods v. Telb, 2000 Ohio 171 (Ohio 2000). “” R.C. 181.24(A). {¶ 13} As part of the Sentencing Commission’s recommendations, the first comprehensive revision of Ohio’s Criminal Code since 1974, Am.”
State v. Evans, 809 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio 2004). “See R.C. 181.24(A), directing a revision of Ohio’s sentencing structure to achieve uniformity, which revision resulted in the enactment of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 181.24(B) — 2 cases
State v. Comer, 793 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio 2003). “None of the provisions of R.C. 181.24 can reasonably be construed as intended to confer substantive rights on offenders.”
State v. Beverly, 2016 Ohio 8078 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “See R.C. 181.24; A Plan for Felony Sentencing in Ohio: A Formal Report of the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission (July 1, 1993).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 181.24(D) — 1 case
State v. Jones, 2024 Ohio 1083 (Ohio 2024). “” R.C. 181.24(A). Part of that command required the commission to “determine whether any special appellate procedures [were] 2.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.