Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2929
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12 (2026)

Seriousness of crime and recidivism factors

✓ 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:
April 9, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 531 (GA 135), House Bill 234 (GA 135)
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Unless otherwise required by section 2929.13 or 2929.14 of the Revised Code, a court that imposes a sentence under this chapter upon an offender for a felony has discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section 2929.11 of the Revised Code. 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, 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 the factors set forth in division (G) of this section relating to Alford pleas and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.

(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 offender's conduct is more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense:

(1) The physical or mental injury suffered by the victim of the offense due to the conduct of the offender was exacerbated because of the physical or mental condition or age of the victim.

(2) The victim of the offense suffered serious physical, psychological, or economic harm, including serious physical harm the victim caused to the victim's self, as a result of the offense.

(3) The victim died by suicide as a result of the offense.

(4) The offender held a public office or position of trust in the community, and the offense related to that office or position.

(5) The offender's occupation, elected office, or profession obliged the offender to prevent the offense or bring others committing it to justice.

(6) The offender's professional reputation or occupation, elected office, or profession was used to facilitate the offense or is likely to influence the future conduct of others.

(7) The offender's relationship with the victim facilitated the offense.

(8) The offender committed the offense for hire or as a part of an organized criminal activity.

(9) In committing the offense, the offender was motivated by prejudice based on race, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

(10) If the offense is a violation of section 2919.25 or a violation of section 2903.11, 2903.12, or 2903.13 of the Revised Code involving a person who was a family or household member at the time of the violation, the offender committed the offense in the vicinity of one or more children who are not victims of the offense, and the offender or the victim of the offense is a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis of one or more of those children.

(C) 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 offender's conduct is less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense:

(1) The victim induced or facilitated the offense.

(2) In committing the offense, the offender acted under strong provocation.

(3) In committing the offense, the offender did not cause or expect to cause physical harm to any person or property.

(4) There are substantial grounds to mitigate the offender's conduct, although the grounds are not enough to constitute a defense.

(D) The sentencing court shall consider all of the following that apply regarding the offender, and any other relevant factors, as factors indicating that the offender is likely to commit future crimes:

(1) At the time of committing the offense, the offender was under release from confinement before trial or sentencing; was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code; was under post-release control pursuant to section 2967.28 or any other provision of the Revised Code for an earlier offense or had been unfavorably terminated from post-release control for a prior offense pursuant to division (B) of section 2967.16 or section 2929.141 of the Revised Code; was under transitional control in connection with a prior offense; or had absconded from the offender's approved community placement resulting in the offender's removal from the transitional control program under section 2967.26 of the Revised Code.

(2) The offender previously was adjudicated a delinquent child pursuant to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code prior to January 1, 2002, or pursuant to Chapter 2152. of the Revised Code, or the offender has a history of criminal convictions.

(3) The offender has not been rehabilitated to a satisfactory degree after previously being adjudicated a delinquent child pursuant to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code prior to January 1, 2002, or pursuant to Chapter 2152. of the Revised Code, or the offender has not responded favorably to sanctions previously imposed for 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 acknowledge that the offender has demonstrated that pattern, or the offender refuses treatment for the drug or alcohol abuse.

(5) The offender shows no genuine remorse for the offense.

(E) The sentencing court shall consider all of the following that apply regarding the offender, and any other relevant factors, as factors indicating that the offender is not likely to commit future crimes:

(1) Prior to committing the offense, the offender had not been adjudicated a delinquent child.

(2) Prior to committing the offense, the offender had not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a criminal offense.

(3) Prior to committing the offense, the offender had led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years.

(4) The offense was committed under circumstances not likely to recur.

(5) Except as provided in division (G) of this section, the offender shows genuine remorse for the offense.

(F) The sentencing court shall consider the offender's military service record and whether the offender has an emotional, mental, or physical condition that is traceable to the offender's service in the armed forces of the United States and that was a contributing factor in the offender's commission of the offense or offenses.

(G) If the offender enters an Alford plea, the sentencing court shall not consider whether the offender showed genuine remorse for the offense.

The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.

Last updated February 19, 2025 at 7:09 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,874 cases (1,336 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243. · cites it 106× “” {¶27} The trial court also stated that it reviewed the presentence report, the victim impact statements, and the comments from those who addressed the court and that it considered the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶28} As to the seriousness…”
State v. Anthony, 2019-Ohio-5410, 151 N.E.3d 13. · cites it 71× “Anthony’s behalf, and the trial court engaged him in a lengthy discussion regarding the applicability of several of the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶47} The state presented statements from Officer Mazany’s wife, his brother, and his son.”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 15× “39 {¶ 37} The second general statute, R.C. 2929.12, grants the sentencing judge discretion “to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.”
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. · cites it 18× “While Bryant agrees that trial courts are permitted to consider a defendant’s showing of “genuine remorse” or lack thereof pursuant to R.C. 2929.12 (D)(5) and (E)(5), respectively, he argues that his outburst may not reasonably be construed as evincing a lack of remorse.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. · cites it 19× “In her first argument, Gwynne asserted that the trial court’s seriousness and recidivism findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.12 were not supported by the record and that her sentence did not comport with the purposes and principles of felony sentencing pursuant to R.”
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. · cites it 60× “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 25× “Turning to the Bible during her deliberations merely assisted the judge in weighing a seriousness factor required for the court’s consideration under R.C. 2929.12, and the Code does not prohibit the trial judge from describing the nature of her deliberations on the record.”
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. · cites it 7× “11 and the findings under R.C. 2929.12” and if, “after reviewing those findings, [the appellate court] find[s] that the sentence is contrary to law or not supported by the record, [it] may take action.”
State v. Nichter, 2016-Ohio-7268, 63 N.E.3d 1219. · cites it 47× “{¶ 7} We reversed, holding that the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.C. 2929.”
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. · cites it 14× “The Seventh District also concluded, “Pursuant to R.C. 2929.12, a trial court is not required to consider the age of a defendant when issuing a felony sentence.”
State v. Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, 218 N.E.3d 765. · cites it 16× “Under that statute, the appellate court cannot modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.”
State v. Roberts, 2020-Ohio-6722. · cites it 15× “11, as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. §2929.12. The court then sentenced the Appellant to nine months each on Counts 1 and 2 and ordered them to run consecutively.”
Show all 3,874 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(1): 1 case
State v. Purvis, 2021-Ohio-265.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(4): 1 case
State v. Ogletree, 2019-Ohio-3999.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(A): 600 cases
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “39 {¶ 37} The second general statute, R.C. 2929.12, grants the sentencing judge discretion “to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. “In her first argument, Gwynne asserted that the trial court’s seriousness and recidivism findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.12 were not supported by the record and that her sentence did not comport with the purposes and principles of felony sentencing pursuant to R.”
State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000). “Turning to the Bible during her deliberations merely assisted the judge in weighing a seriousness factor required for the court’s consideration under R.C. 2929.12, and the Code does not prohibit the trial judge from describing the nature of her deliberations on the record.”
State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243. “” {¶27} The trial court also stated that it reviewed the presentence report, the victim impact statements, and the comments from those who addressed the court and that it considered the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶28} As to the seriousness…”
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St. 3d 208 (2000).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(A)(1): 5 cases
State v. Jefferson, 2012-Ohio-148.
State v. Allen, 2023-Ohio-340.
State v. Perrine, 2013-Ohio-5738.
State v. Keen, 2015-Ohio-3200.
State v. Soto, 2024-Ohio-1457.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(A)(1)(H): 1 case
State v. Dickinson, 2023-Ohio-3068.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(A)(2): 3 cases
State v. Ramunas, 2021-Ohio-3191.
State v. Ware, 2013-Ohio-5833.
State v. Ray, 2016-Ohio-8235.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(A)(4): 2 cases
State v. McIntire, 2022-Ohio-2907.
State v. Crowthers, 2022-Ohio-2206.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(A)(7): 1 case
Lemaster v. Ohio, 119 F. Supp. 2d 754 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B): 740 cases
State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243. “” {¶27} The trial court also stated that it reviewed the presentence report, the victim impact statements, and the comments from those who addressed the court and that it considered the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶28} As to the seriousness…”
State v. Anthony, 2019-Ohio-5410, 151 N.E.3d 13. “Anthony’s behalf, and the trial court engaged him in a lengthy discussion regarding the applicability of several of the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶47} The state presented statements from Officer Mazany’s wife, his brother, and his son.”
State v. Withrow, 2016-Ohio-2884, 64 N.E.3d 553.
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000). “Turning to the Bible during her deliberations merely assisted the judge in weighing a seriousness factor required for the court’s consideration under R.C. 2929.12, and the Code does not prohibit the trial judge from describing the nature of her deliberations on the record.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(1): 104 cases
State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243. “” {¶27} The trial court also stated that it reviewed the presentence report, the victim impact statements, and the comments from those who addressed the court and that it considered the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶28} As to the seriousness…”
State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000). “Turning to the Bible during her deliberations merely assisted the judge in weighing a seriousness factor required for the court’s consideration under R.C. 2929.12, and the Code does not prohibit the trial judge from describing the nature of her deliberations on the record.”
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St. 3d 208 (2000).
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “39 {¶ 37} The second general statute, R.C. 2929.12, grants the sentencing judge discretion “to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.”
State v. Alexander, 2012-Ohio-3349.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(1)(2): 1 case
State v. Kubat, 2018-Ohio-3088.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(1)(c): 2 cases
State v. McCoy, 2013-Ohio-4647.
State v. Martin, 2013-Ohio-3676.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(1)(c)(i): 1 case
State v. Roberts, 2019-Ohio-4205.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(1)(d): 1 case
State v. Massien, 2010-Ohio-1864, 926 N.E.2d 1282.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(10): 2 cases
State v. Kay, 2015-Ohio-4403.
State v. Gross, 2025-Ohio-1894.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(2): 145 cases
State v. Anthony, 2019-Ohio-5410, 151 N.E.3d 13. “Anthony’s behalf, and the trial court engaged him in a lengthy discussion regarding the applicability of several of the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶47} The state presented statements from Officer Mazany’s wife, his brother, and his son.”
State v. Elkins, 773 N.E.2d 593 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2002).
State v. Hughes, 2021-Ohio-3127.
State v. Withrow, 2016-Ohio-2884, 64 N.E.3d 553.
State v. Nienberg, 2017-Ohio-2920.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(2)(6): 1 case
State v. Riffle, 2021-Ohio-2339.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(2)(a): 1 case
State v. Watts, 2017-Ohio-532.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(2)(c): 2 cases
State v. Clark, 2024-Ohio-4930.
State v. Tutt, 2023-Ohio-2819.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(2)(f): 1 case
State v. Ruff, 2017-Ohio-1430.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(2)(h): 1 case
State v. Collier, 2021-Ohio-3202.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(3): 15 cases
State v. Massien, 2010-Ohio-1864, 926 N.E.2d 1282.
State v. Bennett, 2019-Ohio-4937, 149 N.E.3d 1045.
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. Ramirez, 648 N.E.2d 845 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1994).
State v. Hagan, 2019-Ohio-1047.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(4): 9 cases
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. Nichols, 2011-Ohio-4671, 959 N.E.2d 1082.
State v. Nichter, 2016-Ohio-7268, 63 N.E.3d 1219. “{¶ 7} We reversed, holding that the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.C. 2929.”
State v. Peoples, 2022-Ohio-953, 186 N.E.3d 859.
State v. Rigsbee, 880 N.E.2d 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2007).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(5): 6 cases
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. Nichols, 2011-Ohio-4671, 959 N.E.2d 1082.
State v. Nichter, 2016-Ohio-7268, 63 N.E.3d 1219. “{¶ 7} We reversed, holding that the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.C. 2929.”
State v. Rigsbee, 880 N.E.2d 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2007).
State v. Flahive, 711 N.E.2d 746 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1998).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(6): 74 cases
State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243. “” {¶27} The trial court also stated that it reviewed the presentence report, the victim impact statements, and the comments from those who addressed the court and that it considered the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶28} As to the seriousness…”
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. Loy, 2021-Ohio-403.
State v. McCallum, 2021-Ohio-2938.
State v. Smith, 2015-Ohio-4225.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(7): 28 cases
State v. Roberson, 752 N.E.2d 984 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2001).
State v. Kennedy, 2023-Ohio-3078, 224 N.E.3d 70.
State v. Saracco-Rios, 2016-Ohio-7192.
State v. Priest, 2019-Ohio-4901.
State v. Thompson, 2020-Ohio-723.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(8): 8 cases
State v. Wright, 2020-Ohio-5195.
State v. Dodd, 2022-Ohio-4455.
Smith v. Petkovich, 562 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ohio 2008).
State v. Wolford, 2020-Ohio-888.
In re Disqualification of Huffman, 2013-Ohio-1615, 987 N.E.2d 689.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(9): 7 cases
State v. McCallum, 2021-Ohio-2938.
State v. Gore, 2016-Ohio-7667.
State v. Nichols, 2011-Ohio-4671, 959 N.E.2d 1082.
State v. Vieira, 2022-Ohio-1636.
State v. Henry, 2015-Ohio-4145.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(C): 4 cases
State v. Henderson, 2018-Ohio-2816.
State v. Burns, 2012-Ohio-2698.
State v. Williams, 2019-Ohio-4873.
State v. Morgan, 2019-Ohio-2385.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(C)(D): 6 cases
State v. Romanko, 2017-Ohio-739.
State v. Freeman, 801 N.E.2d 906 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003).
State v. Nichols, 2013-Ohio-3285.
State v. Hartman, 2014-Ohio-5718.
State v. Hanlin, 2014-Ohio-5719.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(B)(C)(D)(E): 11 cases
State v. Tubbs, 2020-Ohio-730.
State v. Lee, 2020-Ohio-3580.
State v. Fuller, 2016-Ohio-7285.
State v. Bruce, 2018-Ohio-2478.
State v. Wells, 2021-Ohio-2343.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C): 376 cases
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “The Seventh District also concluded, “Pursuant to R.C. 2929.12, a trial court is not required to consider the age of a defendant when issuing a felony sentence.”
State v. Nichter, 2016-Ohio-7268, 63 N.E.3d 1219. “{¶ 7} We reversed, holding that the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.C. 2929.”
State v. Roberts, 2020-Ohio-6722. “11, as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. §2929.12. The court then sentenced the Appellant to nine months each on Counts 1 and 2 and ordered them to run consecutively.”
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. Polley, 2020-Ohio-3213.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C)(1): 47 cases
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “39 {¶ 37} The second general statute, R.C. 2929.12, grants the sentencing judge discretion “to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.”
State v. Berry, 2021-Ohio-1132.
State v. Hale, 2014-Ohio-262, 7 N.E.3d 643.
State v. Gore, 2016-Ohio-7667.
State v. Thompson, 2023-Ohio-2942.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C)(1)(2): 1 case
State v. Blevins, 2019-Ohio-2744, 140 N.E.3d 27.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C)(1)(3): 1 case
State v. Blevins, 2019-Ohio-2744, 140 N.E.3d 27.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C)(2): 25 cases
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. Nichter, 2016-Ohio-7268, 63 N.E.3d 1219. “{¶ 7} We reversed, holding that the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.C. 2929.”
State v. Loy, 2021-Ohio-403.
State v. Gore, 2016-Ohio-7667.
State v. Blevins, 2019-Ohio-2744, 140 N.E.3d 27.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C)(3): 56 cases
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. MacDonald, 2019-Ohio-3595.
State v. Nichter, 2016-Ohio-7268, 63 N.E.3d 1219. “{¶ 7} We reversed, holding that the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.C. 2929.”
State v. Holloway, 2018-Ohio-4636.
State v. Dawson, 2016-Ohio-2800.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C)(4): 100 cases
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
State v. Gwynne, 2022-Ohio-4607, 231 N.E.3d 1035.
State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, 231 N.E.3d 1109.
State v. Long, 2014-Ohio-849, 8 N.E.3d 890.
State v. Nichter, 2016-Ohio-7268, 63 N.E.3d 1219. “{¶ 7} We reversed, holding that the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.C. 2929.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C)(4)(a): 1 case
State v. Black, 2018-Ohio-1342, 109 N.E.3d 716.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C)(5): 1 case
State v. Roach, 2016-Ohio-4656.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(C)(7): 1 case
State v. Hummer, 668 N.E.2d 939 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1995).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D): 388 cases
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. “While Bryant agrees that trial courts are permitted to consider a defendant’s showing of “genuine remorse” or lack thereof pursuant to R.C. 2929.12 (D)(5) and (E)(5), respectively, he argues that his outburst may not reasonably be construed as evincing a lack of remorse.”
State v. Shank, 2013-Ohio-5368.
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “39 {¶ 37} The second general statute, R.C. 2929.12, grants the sentencing judge discretion “to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.”
State v. Nichols, 2011-Ohio-4671, 959 N.E.2d 1082.
State v. Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, 218 N.E.3d 765. “Under that statute, the appellate court cannot modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D)(1): 72 cases
State v. Harper (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248.
Crangle v. Kelly, 838 F.3d 673 (5th Cir. 2016).
State v. Nienberg, 2017-Ohio-2920.
State v. Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, 218 N.E.3d 765. “Under that statute, the appellate court cannot modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.”
State v. Howell, 2015-Ohio-4049.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D)(2): 122 cases
State v. Anthony, 2019-Ohio-5410, 151 N.E.3d 13. “Anthony’s behalf, and the trial court engaged him in a lengthy discussion regarding the applicability of several of the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶47} The state presented statements from Officer Mazany’s wife, his brother, and his son.”
State v. Nienberg, 2017-Ohio-2920.
State v. Howell, 2015-Ohio-4049.
State v. Noble, 2014-Ohio-5485.
State v. Berry, 2021-Ohio-1132.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D)(2)(3): 1 case
State v. Saylor, 2019-Ohio-1025.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D)(2)(3)(5): 1 case
State v. Riffle, 2021-Ohio-2339.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D)(3): 43 cases
State v. Wingate, 2020-Ohio-6796.
State v. Noble, 2014-Ohio-5485.
State v. Robinson, 828 N.E.2d 1050 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2005).
State v. Berry, 2021-Ohio-1132.
State v. Hurley, 2014-Ohio-2716.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D)(4): 47 cases
State v. Dawson, 2016-Ohio-2800.
State v. Noble, 2014-Ohio-5485.
State v. Berry, 2021-Ohio-1132.
State v. Redman, 2016-Ohio-860.
State v. Nichols, 2011-Ohio-4671, 959 N.E.2d 1082.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D)(5): 100 cases
State v. Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, 218 N.E.3d 765. “Under that statute, the appellate court cannot modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.”
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. “While Bryant agrees that trial courts are permitted to consider a defendant’s showing of “genuine remorse” or lack thereof pursuant to R.C. 2929.12 (D)(5) and (E)(5), respectively, he argues that his outburst may not reasonably be construed as evincing a lack of remorse.”
State v. Rahab (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-1401, 80 N.E.3d 431.
State v. Peddicord, 2013-Ohio-3398.
State v. Nienberg, 2017-Ohio-2920.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D)(6): 1 case
State v. Bentley, 2013-Ohio-852.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(D)(E): 5 cases
State v. Henderson, 2018-Ohio-2816.
State v. Williams, 2019-Ohio-4873.
State v. Carlock, 2021-Ohio-4550.
State v. Morgan, 2019-Ohio-2385.
State v. Vinka, 2025-Ohio-2567.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(E): 176 cases
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “39 {¶ 37} The second general statute, R.C. 2929.12, grants the sentencing judge discretion “to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.”
State v. Roberts, 2020-Ohio-6722. “11, as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. §2929.12. The court then sentenced the Appellant to nine months each on Counts 1 and 2 and ordered them to run consecutively.”
State v. Anderson, 2017-Ohio-7375.
State v. Steidl, 2011-Ohio-2320.
State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243. “” {¶27} The trial court also stated that it reviewed the presentence report, the victim impact statements, and the comments from those who addressed the court and that it considered the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶28} As to the seriousness…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(E)(1): 24 cases
State v. Redman, 2016-Ohio-860.
State v. West, 2022-Ohio-4069.
State v. Henry, 2015-Ohio-4145.
State v. Anderson, 2017-Ohio-7375.
State v. Shepard, 2019-Ohio-3995.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(E)(2): 20 cases
State v. Smith, 2015-Ohio-4225.
State v. Saylor, 2019-Ohio-1025.
State v. Mavrakis, 2015-Ohio-4902.
State v. Cyrek, 2019-Ohio-4515.
State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-6387.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(E)(3): 24 cases
State v. Anthony, 2019-Ohio-5410, 151 N.E.3d 13. “Anthony’s behalf, and the trial court engaged him in a lengthy discussion regarding the applicability of several of the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶47} The state presented statements from Officer Mazany’s wife, his brother, and his son.”
State v. MacDonald, 2019-Ohio-3595.
State v. Hill, 2014-Ohio-919.
State v. Brown, 2018-Ohio-4939.
State v. Shepard, 2019-Ohio-3995.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(E)(4): 31 cases
State v. Anthony, 2019-Ohio-5410, 151 N.E.3d 13. “Anthony’s behalf, and the trial court engaged him in a lengthy discussion regarding the applicability of several of the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶47} The state presented statements from Officer Mazany’s wife, his brother, and his son.”
State v. MacDonald, 2019-Ohio-3595.
State v. Saylor, 2019-Ohio-1025.
State v. Gore, 2016-Ohio-7667.
State v. Mannarino, 2013-Ohio-1795.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(E)(5): 62 cases
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. “While Bryant agrees that trial courts are permitted to consider a defendant’s showing of “genuine remorse” or lack thereof pursuant to R.C. 2929.12 (D)(5) and (E)(5), respectively, he argues that his outburst may not reasonably be construed as evincing a lack of remorse.”
State v. Anthony, 2019-Ohio-5410, 151 N.E.3d 13. “Anthony’s behalf, and the trial court engaged him in a lengthy discussion regarding the applicability of several of the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. {¶47} The state presented statements from Officer Mazany’s wife, his brother, and his son.”
State v. Polley, 2020-Ohio-3213.
State v. Berry, 2021-Ohio-1132.
State v. Archer, 2019-Ohio-171.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(E)(8): 1 case
State v. Foster, 782 N.E.2d 1181 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2002).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(F): 105 cases
State v. Belew (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-2964, 17 N.E.3d 515.
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. “In her first argument, Gwynne asserted that the trial court’s seriousness and recidivism findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.12 were not supported by the record and that her sentence did not comport with the purposes and principles of felony sentencing pursuant to R.”
State v. Downing, 2024-Ohio-381.
Karr v. Blay, 413 F. Supp. 579 (N.D. Ohio 1976).
State v. Castle, 2016-Ohio-4974, 67 N.E.3d 1283.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(F)(5): 1 case
State v. Collins, 2022-Ohio-3872.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(H)(2): 1 case
State v. Weiss, 905 N.E.2d 1298 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2009).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(J)(1)(b): 1 case
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984. “Appellant appealed to this court as a matter of right. {¶ 7} This court reversed, holding the trial court had failed to make the "very specific set of findings" required by R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12(b)(1): 2 cases
James Arnett v. Wanza Jackson, Warden, 393 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2005).
Arnett v. Jackson, No. 03-4375 (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2005).
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.