Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2929
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11 (2026)

Purposes of felony sentencing

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 29, 2018
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 66 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.

(B) A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the three overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in division (A) of this section, commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders.

(C) A court that imposes a sentence upon an offender for a felony shall not base the sentence upon the race, ethnic background, gender, or religion of the offender.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4,324 cases (1,443 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. · cites it 61× “08(G)(2)(a) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of record support for the trial court’s findings made under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12—R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or…”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. · cites it 51× “] Criminal law—State forfeits the right to argue that a court of appeals is barred from reviewing a sentencing appeal when the state does not timely invoke a defendant’s appeal waiver—R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 have no application to consecutive-sentencing review in a court of…”
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. · cites it 28× “He argues that although trial courts have a great deal of discretion in fashioning sentences, ultimately, they are constrained by the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, none of which allow a court to consider a defendant’s show of disrespect toward a court when it…”
State v. Belton (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1581, 74 N.E.3d 319. · cites it 16× “2, Belton contends that his death sentence is unconstitutional because the 2011 amendment to R.C. 2929.11 “effectively repealed Ohio’s death penalty.”
State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243. · cites it 34× “As to the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, the trial court stated as follows: {¶26} “I’ve considered the applicable statutes, that being 2929.”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 10× “Statutory “Considerations” in Every Case: R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 {¶ 36} Two statutory sections apply as a general judicial guide for every sentencing.”
State v. Toles (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-3531, 186 N.E.3d 784. · cites it 17× “08(G)(2)(b), 2020-Ohio-4267, at ¶ 40 , but that it could not consider whether the record supported the findings made by the trial court and the sentence imposed under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, 2020-Ohio-4267, at ¶ 39 .”
State v. Roberts, 2017-Ohio-9014, 101 N.E.3d 1067. · cites it 32× “Until the legislature or the Supreme Court of Ohio steps in with a more definitive review process that ensures consistency, we should continue to adhere to the unambiguous language of R.C. 2953.08(G). As the dissent notes, although there may have been an intent under Am.”
State v. Dinka, 2019-Ohio-4209. · cites it 14× “- 11 - Warren CA2019-03-022 CA2019-03-026 {¶ 35} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred when it imposed a 12-month prison term without considering "all of the statutory factors" set forth R.”
State v. Franklin, 2019-Ohio-3760. · cites it 25× “The findings made by the trial court in support of the defendant’s length of sentence pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 clearly and convincingly lack support in the record.”
State v. Leopard, 2011-Ohio-3864, 957 N.E.2d 55. · cites it 20× “Third, he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing more than minimum and consecutive sentences. {¶ 7} When reviewing felony sentences, an appellate court must first determine whether the sentencing court complied with all applicable rules and statutes in…”
State v. D-Bey, 2021-Ohio-60. · cites it 21× “The court finds that prison is consistent with the purpose of R.C. 2929.11.” Although the trial court imposed concurrent sentences at the sentencing hearing, in its sentencing journal entry, the trial court indicated that the sentences were to be served consecutively.”
Show all 4,324 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(2)(a): 1 case
United States v. Hollins, 863 F. Supp. 563 (N.D. Ohio 1994).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A): 1234 cases
State v. Belton (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1581, 74 N.E.3d 319. “2, Belton contends that his death sentence is unconstitutional because the 2011 amendment to R.C. 2929.11 “effectively repealed Ohio’s death penalty.”
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “08(G)(2)(a) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of record support for the trial court’s findings made under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12—R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or…”
State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243. “As to the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, the trial court stated as follows: {¶26} “I’ve considered the applicable statutes, that being 2929.”
State v. Roberts, 2017-Ohio-9014, 101 N.E.3d 1067. “Until the legislature or the Supreme Court of Ohio steps in with a more definitive review process that ensures consistency, we should continue to adhere to the unambiguous language of R.C. 2953.08(G). As the dissent notes, although there may have been an intent under Am.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. “] Criminal law—State forfeits the right to argue that a court of appeals is barred from reviewing a sentencing appeal when the state does not timely invoke a defendant’s appeal waiver—R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 have no application to consecutive-sentencing review in a court of…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A)(1): 1 case
State v. Julian, 2011-Ohio-4014.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A)(2): 1 case
State v. Hefner, 2018-Ohio-2344.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A)(4): 1 case
State v. Martin, 2020-Ohio-291.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A)(B): 2 cases
State v. Dukes, 2017-Ohio-7204.
State v. Scoggins, 2017-Ohio-8989.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A)(C)(4)(a): 1 case
State v. Kennard, 2024-Ohio-2205.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B): 849 cases
State v. Moore, 2014-Ohio-5135.
State v. Roberts, 2017-Ohio-9014, 101 N.E.3d 1067. “Until the legislature or the Supreme Court of Ohio steps in with a more definitive review process that ensures consistency, we should continue to adhere to the unambiguous language of R.C. 2953.08(G). As the dissent notes, although there may have been an intent under Am.”
State v. Rahab (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-1401, 80 N.E.3d 431.
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “08(G)(2)(a) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of record support for the trial court’s findings made under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12—R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or…”
State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-2669, 951 N.E.2d 381.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(1): 9 cases
McIntyre v. Hooks (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-3529, 165 N.E.3d 229.
State v. Moore, 598 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1991).
State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-5990.
State v. Daws, 662 N.E.2d 805 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1994).
Amusement Devices Ass'n v. State of Ohio, 443 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Ohio 1977).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(1)(a): 12 cases
State v. Thomas (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-5567, 70 N.E.3d 496.
State v. Azeen (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-1735, 170 N.E.3d 864.
State v. Chapman, 2016-Ohio-8151.
State v. Crouse, 528 N.E.2d 1283 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1987).
State v. Lauharn, 2011-Ohio-4292.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(1)(b): 11 cases
State v. Bennett, 2023-Ohio-4412.
State v. Taylor, 676 N.E.2d 82 (Ohio 1997).
State v. Perkins, 639 N.E.2d 833 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994).
State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St. 3d 15 (1997).
State v. Moore, 2024-Ohio-5839.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(2): 4 cases
Lewis v. Telb, 497 N.E.2d 1376 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1985).
State v. Childress, 632 N.E.2d 562 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1993).
State v. Taylor, 2020-Ohio-1648.
State v. Hawkins, 87 Ohio St. 3d 311 (1999).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(2)(a): 3 cases
State v. Calvillo, 603 N.E.2d 325 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1991).
State ex rel. Glover v. Seiter, 572 N.E.2d 135 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1988).
State v. Jones, 583 N.E.2d 1023 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(2)(a)(viii): 1 case
State v. Peltier, 2019-Ohio-569.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(2)(b): 3 cases
State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4138, 158 Ohio 3.
State v. Miller, 2019-Ohio-3294, 141 N.E.3d 604.
State v. Mollick, No. 99CA007315 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. July 19, 2000).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(3)(a): 1 case
State v. Heidelburg, 507 N.E.2d 1149 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1986).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(4): 4 cases
State v. Odubanjo, 609 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1992).
State v. White, 2017-Ohio-810.
State v. Combs, 598 N.E.2d 815 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1991).
State v. Chaney, 465 N.E.2d 53 (Ohio 1984).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(5): 2 cases
State v. Smith, 537 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio 1989).
State v. Hamann, 630 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1993).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(6): 12 cases
State v. Runnels, 565 N.E.2d 610 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989).
State v. Tyson, 482 N.E.2d 1327 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1984).
State v. Miller, 681 N.E.2d 970 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1996).
State v. Blagajevic, 488 N.E.2d 495 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1985).
State v. Lytle, 551 N.E.2d 950 (Ohio 1990).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(7): 19 cases
State v. Witwer, 596 N.E.2d 451 (Ohio 1992).
State v. Shue, 646 N.E.2d 1156 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1994).
State v. Bruce, 642 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1994).
State v. Jones, 681 N.E.2d 908 (Ohio 1997).
State v. Lytle, 551 N.E.2d 950 (Ohio 1990).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C): 21 cases
State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000).
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “08(G)(2)(a) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of record support for the trial court’s findings made under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12—R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or…”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “Statutory “Considerations” in Every Case: R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 {¶ 36} Two statutory sections apply as a general judicial guide for every sentencing.”
State v. Comer, 793 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio 2003).
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. “He argues that although trial courts have a great deal of discretion in fashioning sentences, ultimately, they are constrained by the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, none of which allow a court to consider a defendant’s show of disrespect toward a court when it…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(1): 1 case
State v. Harper, 547 N.E.2d 395 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1988).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(1)(a): 2 cases
State v. Ebbing, 2021-Ohio-865.
State v. Gardner, 2022-Ohio-2973.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(3): 3 cases
State v. Blagajevic, 488 N.E.2d 495 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1985).
State v. Montes, 636 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1993).
State v. McCool, 544 N.E.2d 933 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1988).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(4): 2 cases
State v. Chaney, 465 N.E.2d 53 (Ohio 1984).
State v. Long, 2017-Ohio-2848.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(6)(a): 1 case
State v. Baker, 2019-Ohio-2280.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(6)(f): 1 case
State v. Barnes, 2020-Ohio-3943.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(D): 37 cases
State v. Lundy, 535 N.E.2d 664 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1987).
State v. Witwer, 596 N.E.2d 451 (Ohio 1992).
State v. Fryling, 620 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1992).
State v. Lake, 675 N.E.2d 1258 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1996).
State v. Jones, 681 N.E.2d 908 (Ohio 1997).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(D)(1): 13 cases
State v. Patterson, 692 N.E.2d 593 (Ohio 1998).
United States v. Bryant Lockett, 359 F. App'x 598 (6th Cir. 2009).
State v. Hamann, 630 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1993).
State v. Wohlgemuth, 583 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1990).
United States v. Real Prop., 843 F. Supp. 337 (S.D. Ohio 1993).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(D)(2): 16 cases
State v. O'Dell, 543 N.E.2d 1220 (Ohio 1989).
State v. Witwer, 596 N.E.2d 451 (Ohio 1992).
State v. Hill, 635 N.E.2d 1248 (Ohio 1994).
State v. Hylton, 600 N.E.2d 821 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1991).
State v. Moore, 675 N.E.2d 13 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1996).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(E): 24 cases
State v. Wohlgemuth, 583 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1990).
State v. Warner, 564 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio 1990).
State v. Irvin, 528 N.E.2d 1277 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1987).
State v. Pittman, 572 N.E.2d 841 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1990).
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2005).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(G): 14 cases
State v. Tyson, 482 N.E.2d 1327 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1984).
State v. Lytle, 551 N.E.2d 950 (Ohio 1990).
State v. Fryling, 620 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1992).
State v. Carroll, 662 N.E.2d 65 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1995).
State v. Wong, 641 N.E.2d 1137 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1994).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(b)(1)(a): 1 case
State v. Vajda, 2 Ohio App. Unrep. 385 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1990).
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.