Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11 (2026)

Purposes of felony sentencing

✓ current as of May 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 (Ohio 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6729 (Ohio 2020). · 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 (Ohio 2019). · 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 (Ohio 2022). · 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 (Ohio 2016). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · 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 (Ohio 2021). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · 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 (Ohio 2016). “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 (Ohio 2020). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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 (Ohio 2019). “] 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 Ct. App. 2011).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A)(2) — 1 case

State v. Hefner, 2018 Ohio 2344 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A)(4) — 1 case

State v. Martin, 2020 Ohio 291 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A)(B) — 2 cases

State v. Dukes, 2017 Ohio 7204 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).

State v. Scoggins, 2017 Ohio 8989 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(A)(C)(4)(a) — 1 case

State v. Kennard, 2024 Ohio 2205 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B) — 849 cases

State v. Moore, 2014 Ohio 5135 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).

State v. Roberts, 2017 Ohio 9014 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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 (Ohio 2017).

State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6729 (Ohio 2020). “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 (Ohio 2011).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(1) — 9 cases

McIntyre v. Hooks (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3529 (Ohio 2020).

State v. Moore, 598 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).

State v. Wilson, 2011 Ohio 5990 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).

State v. Daws, 662 N.E.2d 805 (Ohio Ct. App. 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 (Ohio 2016).

State v. Azeen (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 1735 (Ohio 2021).

State v. Chapman, 2016 Ohio 8151 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).

State v. Crouse, 528 N.E.2d 1283 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).

State v. Lauharn, 2011 Ohio 4292 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(1)(b) — 11 cases

State v. Bennett, 2023 Ohio 4412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).

State v. Taylor, 676 N.E.2d 82 (Ohio 1997).

State v. Perkins, 639 N.E.2d 833 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).

State v. Taylor, 1997 Ohio 243 (Ohio 1997).

State v. Moore, 2024 Ohio 5839 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(2) — 4 cases

Lewis v. Telb, 497 N.E.2d 1376 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).

State v. Childress, 632 N.E.2d 562 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).

State v. Taylor, 2020 Ohio 1648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).

State v. Hawkins, 1999 Ohio 70 (Ohio 1999).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(2)(a) — 3 cases

State v. Calvillo, 603 N.E.2d 325 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).

State, Ex Rel. Glover v. Seiter, 572 N.E.2d 135 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).

State v. Jones, 583 N.E.2d 1023 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(2)(a)(viii) — 1 case

State v. Peltier, 2019 Ohio 569 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(2)(b) — 3 cases

State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4138 (Ohio 2019).

State v. Miller, 2019 Ohio 3294 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).

State v. Mollick, Unpublished Decision (7-19-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(3)(a) — 1 case

State v. Heidelburg, 507 N.E.2d 1149 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(4) — 4 cases

State v. Odubanjo, 609 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).

State v. White, 2017 Ohio 810 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).

State v. Combs, 598 N.E.2d 815 (Ohio Ct. App. 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. 1993).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(B)(6) — 12 cases

State v. Runnels, 565 N.E.2d 610 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).

State v. Tyson, 482 N.E.2d 1327 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).

State v. Miller, 681 N.E.2d 970 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).

State v. Blagajevic, 488 N.E.2d 495 (Ohio Ct. App. 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. 1994).

State v. Bruce, 642 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio Ct. App. 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 (Ohio 2020). “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 (Ohio 2022). “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. 1988).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(1)(a) — 2 cases

State v. Ebbing, 2021 Ohio 865 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).

State v. Gardner, 2022 Ohio 2973 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(3) — 3 cases

State v. Blagajevic, 488 N.E.2d 495 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).

State v. Montes, 636 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).

State v. McCool, 544 N.E.2d 933 (Ohio Ct. App. 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 Ct. App. 2017).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(6)(a) — 1 case

State v. Baker, 2019 Ohio 2280 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(C)(6)(f) — 1 case

State v. Barnes, 2020 Ohio 3943 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(D) — 37 cases

State v. Lundy, 535 N.E.2d 664 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).

State v. Witwer, 596 N.E.2d 451 (Ohio 1992).

State v. Fryling, 620 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).

State v. Lake, 675 N.E.2d 1258 (Ohio Ct. App. 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. 1993).

State v. Wohlgemuth, 583 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 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. 1991).

State v. Moore, 675 N.E.2d 13 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(E) — 24 cases

State v. Wohlgemuth, 583 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).

State v. Warner, 564 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio 1990).

State v. Irvin, 528 N.E.2d 1277 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).

State v. Pittman, 572 N.E.2d 841 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).

State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(G) — 14 cases

State v. Tyson, 482 N.E.2d 1327 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).

State v. Lytle, 551 N.E.2d 950 (Ohio 1990).

State v. Fryling, 620 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).

State v. Carroll, 662 N.E.2d 65 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).

State v. Wong, 641 N.E.2d 1137 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11(b)(1)(a) — 1 case

State v. Vajda, 2 Ohio App. Unrep. 385 (Ohio Ct. App. 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.