Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2929
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21 (2026)

Purposes of misdemeanor sentencing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
June 1, 2004
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 52 - 125th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) A court that sentences an offender for a misdemeanor or minor misdemeanor violation of any provision of the Revised Code, or of any municipal ordinance that is substantially similar to a misdemeanor or minor misdemeanor violation of a provision of the Revised Code, shall be guided by the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing. The overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the impact of the offense upon the victim and the need for changing the offender's behavior, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or the victim and the public.

(B) A sentence imposed for a misdemeanor or minor misdemeanor violation of a Revised Code provision or for a violation of a municipal ordinance that is subject to division (A) of this section shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding purposes of misdemeanor 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 offenses committed by similar offenders.

(C) A court that imposes a sentence upon an offender for a misdemeanor or minor misdemeanor violation of a Revised Code provision or for a violation of a municipal ordinance that is subject to division (A) of this section shall not base the sentence upon the race, ethnic background, gender, or religion of the offender.

(D) Divisions (A) and (B) of this section shall not apply to any offense that is disposed of by a traffic violations bureau of any court pursuant to Traffic Rule 13 and shall not apply to any violation of any provision of the Revised Code that is a minor misdemeanor and that is disposed of without a court appearance. Divisions (A) to (C) of this section do not affect any penalties established by a municipal corporation for a violation of its ordinances.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 357 cases (109 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Thadur, 2016-Ohio-417.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Thadur, 2016-Ohio-417. · cites it 12× “{¶10} In her First Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in sentencing her to maximum consecutive sentences on the two vehicular manslaughter counts, in light of the sentencing requirements of R.C. 2929.21. We disagree. {¶11} Generally, misdemeanor…”
State v. Anderson, 2016-Ohio-2704. · cites it 7× “{¶19} Appellant also characterizes the trial court’s sentence as arbitrary in that the trial court arrived at the number of days in Appellant’s sentence by calculating the number of school days Appellant’s minor child missed. Appellant entered his plea on June 19, 2015.”
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “To the contrary, the court is charged with determining the most effective way to achieve the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing set out in R.C. 2929.21, and the court may impose any combination of sanctions authorized by R.”
State v. Burley, 2017-Ohio-378. · cites it 6× “22(A) provides a court imposing sentence for a misdemeanor with “discretion to determine the most effective way to achieve the purposes and principles of sentencing” provided in R.C. 2929.21. Unless a specific sentence is required, a court that imposes a sentence upon an…”
State v. Kinsworthy, 2014-Ohio-2238. · cites it 8× “R.C. 2929.21 and 2929.22 {¶ 29} Kinsworthy next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to address the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing pursuant to R.”
State v. Walker, 841 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 16× “I {¶ 5} In the first assignment of error, Walker claims that “the trial court exceeded its authority under O.R.C. § 2929.21 by ordering Appellant to pay restitution for the care of his seven black bears.”
State v. Bowser, 926 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “R.C. 2929.21(A). And a principle of sentencing is that sanctions should be designed with an eye to changing the offender’s behavior and rehabilitating him.”
State v. Nuby, 2016-Ohio-8157. · cites it 4× “22(A) provides a court imposing sentence for a misdemeanor with “discretion to determine the most effective way to achieve the purposes and principles of sentencing” provided in R.C. 2929.21. Unless a specific sentence is required, a court that imposes a sentence upon an…”
State v. Cooper, 2016-Ohio-4730. · cites it 7× “The sentence constituted an abuse of discretion and was not consistent with R.C. 2929.21 and R.C. 2929.22. [2.] The trial court erred when it did not comply with Criminal Rule 11(E) before accepting Cooper’s guilty plea, at the plea hearing on February 10, 2015.”
State v. Pippert, 2016-Ohio-1352, 62 N.E.3d 918. · cites it 6× “{¶22} The sentencing court also “may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section 2929.”
State v. Reeves, 2020-Ohio-5565. · cites it 4× “- 11 - Clermont CA2020-01-001 {¶ 42} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.21 and 2929.22, trial courts have broad discretion when determining what sentence is appropriate for each given misdemeanor case.”
State v. Henson, 2021-Ohio-38. · cites it 7× “Rule of Law: Misdemeanor Sentencing Scheme {¶ 12} "Pursuant to R.C. 2929.21 and 2929.22, trial courts have broad discretion when determining what sentence is appropriate for each given misdemeanor case.”
Show all 357 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(A): 159 cases
State v. Thadur, 2016-Ohio-417. “{¶10} In her First Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in sentencing her to maximum consecutive sentences on the two vehicular manslaughter counts, in light of the sentencing requirements of R.C. 2929.21. We disagree. {¶11} Generally, misdemeanor…”
State v. Bowser, 926 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “R.C. 2929.21(A). And a principle of sentencing is that sanctions should be designed with an eye to changing the offender’s behavior and rehabilitating him.”
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “To the contrary, the court is charged with determining the most effective way to achieve the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing set out in R.C. 2929.21, and the court may impose any combination of sanctions authorized by R.”
State v. Pittman (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8314, 79 N.E.3d 531.
State v. Hogya, 2023-Ohio-342.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(A)(2): 2 cases
State v. Wells, 2013-Ohio-1179.
State v. Brice, 2017-Ohio-974, 86 N.E.3d 896.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(B): 84 cases
State v. Anderson, 2016-Ohio-2704. “{¶19} Appellant also characterizes the trial court’s sentence as arbitrary in that the trial court arrived at the number of days in Appellant’s sentence by calculating the number of school days Appellant’s minor child missed. Appellant entered his plea on June 19, 2015.”
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “To the contrary, the court is charged with determining the most effective way to achieve the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing set out in R.C. 2929.21, and the court may impose any combination of sanctions authorized by R.”
State v. Downie, 918 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Talty, 814 N.E.2d 1201 (Ohio 2004).
State v. Thadur, 2016-Ohio-417. “{¶10} In her First Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in sentencing her to maximum consecutive sentences on the two vehicular manslaughter counts, in light of the sentencing requirements of R.C. 2929.21. We disagree. {¶11} Generally, misdemeanor…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(B)(1): 14 cases
State v. Young, 525 N.E.2d 1363 (Ohio 1988).
In Re Slusser, 748 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Wagner, 608 N.E.2d 852 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Cleveland v. Aeon Fin., L.L.C., 2016-Ohio-4559.
State v. Rangel, 747 N.E.2d 291 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(B)(2): 2 cases
State v. Puterbaugh, 755 N.E.2d 359 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Henley, 740 N.E.2d 1113 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(B)(3): 5 cases
Dayton Christian Schs., Inc. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n, 766 F.2d 932 (6th Cir. 1985).
State v. Swartz, 723 N.E.2d 1084 (Ohio 2000).
In Re Tiber, 797 N.E.2d 161 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Berger, 477 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
City of Westlake v. Kilbane, 765 N.E.2d 986 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(B)(4): 1 case
State v. Rutland, 786 N.E.2d 530 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(C): 2 cases
State v. Risner, 698 N.E.2d 511 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Vill. of Waynesville v. Combs, 584 N.E.2d 9 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(C)(1): 3 cases
City of Cleveland v. Scott, 457 N.E.2d 351 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983).
State v. Chaney, 465 N.E.2d 53 (Ohio 1984).
State v. Longhorn World Championship Rodeo, Inc., 483 N.E.2d 196 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(C)(3): 1 case
Penn v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 756 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Ohio 1990).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(C)(4): 1 case
State v. Rutland, 786 N.E.2d 530 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(D): 14 cases
City of Eastlake v. Kosec, 504 N.E.2d 1180 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Curtis, 2020-Ohio-4152, 157 N.E.3d 879.
State v. Robinson, 659 N.E.2d 1292 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
City of Niles v. Howard, 466 N.E.2d 539 (Ohio 1984).
State v. Reynolds, 495 N.E.2d 971 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(E): 20 cases
State v. Walker, 841 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “I {¶ 5} In the first assignment of error, Walker claims that “the trial court exceeded its authority under O.R.C. § 2929.21 by ordering Appellant to pay restitution for the care of his seven black bears.”
State v. Ham, 2009-Ohio-3822.
State v. Wohlgemuth, 583 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Hileman, 708 N.E.2d 1078 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Bybee, 731 N.E.2d 232 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(G): 1 case
State v. Balfour, 2012-Ohio-3453.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.21(H): 1 case
State v. Walker, 841 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “I {¶ 5} In the first assignment of error, Walker claims that “the trial court exceeded its authority under O.R.C. § 2929.21 by ordering Appellant to pay restitution for the care of his seven black bears.”
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.