(A) Unless a mandatory jail term is required to be imposed by division (G) of section 1547.99, division (B) of section 4510.14, division (G) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code, or any other provision of the Revised Code a court that imposes a sentence under this chapter upon an offender for a misdemeanor or minor misdemeanor has discretion to determine the most effective way to achieve the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section 2929.21 of the Revised Code.
Unless a specific sanction is required to be imposed or is precluded from being imposed by the section setting forth an offense or the penalty for an offense or by any provision of sections 2929.23 to 2929.28 of the Revised Code, a court that imposes a sentence upon an offender for a misdemeanor may impose on the offender any sanction or combination of sanctions under sections 2929.24 to 2929.28 of the Revised Code. The court shall not impose a sentence that imposes an unnecessary burden on local government resources.
(B)(1) In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, the court shall consider all of the following factors:
(a) The nature and circumstances of the offense or offenses;
(b) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the offense or offenses indicate that the offender has a history of persistent criminal activity and that the offender's character and condition reveal a substantial risk that the offender will commit another offense;
(c) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the offense or offenses indicate that the offender's history, character, and condition reveal a substantial risk that the offender will be a danger to others and that the offender's conduct has been characterized by a pattern of repetitive, compulsive, or aggressive behavior with heedless indifference to the consequences;
(d) Whether the victim's youth, age, disability, or other factor made the victim particularly vulnerable to the offense or made the impact of the offense more serious;
(e) Whether the offender is likely to commit future crimes in general, in addition to the circumstances described in divisions (B)(1)(b) and (c) of this section;
(f) 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) The offender's military service record.
(2) In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, if the offender enters an Alford plea, the sentencing court shall not consider whether the offender showed genuine remorse for the offense.
(3) In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, in addition to complying with division (B)(1) of this section, the court may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section 2929.21 of the Revised Code.
(C) Before imposing a jail term as a sentence for a misdemeanor, a court shall consider the appropriateness of imposing a community control sanction or a combination of community control sanctions under sections 2929.25, 2929.26, 2929.27, and 2929.28 of the Revised Code. A court may impose the longest jail term authorized under section 2929.24 of the Revised Code only upon offenders who commit the worst forms of the offense or upon offenders whose conduct and response to prior sanctions for prior offenses demonstrate that the imposition of the longest jail term is necessary to deter the offender from committing a future criminal offense.
(D)(1) A sentencing court shall consider any relevant oral and written statement made by the victim, the victim's representative, the victim's attorney, if applicable, the defendant, the defense attorney, and the prosecuting authority regarding sentencing for a misdemeanor. This division does not create any rights to notice other than those rights authorized by Chapter 2930. of the Revised Code.
(2) At the time of sentencing for a misdemeanor or as soon as possible after sentencing, the court shall notify the victim of the offense of the victim's right to file an application for an award of reparations pursuant to sections 2743.51 to 2743.72 of the Revised Code.
Last updated February 3, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 335
cases (120 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-733.
State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-733. · cites it 21ד{¶2} Williams initially asserts that the trial court erred because it failed to consider the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.22. Because the trial court’s sentence was within the statutory range and Williams makes no affirmative showing to rebut the presumption that the trial…”
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 16דFIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 8} “The trial court failed to follow O.R.C. 2929.22 when imposing sentence upon the defendant.”
State v. Burley, 2017-Ohio-378. · cites it 17דHe states the court disregarded the sentencing criteria, failed to discuss the factors, and was motivated by factors other than those listed in the statute.”
State v. Nuby, 2016-Ohio-8157. · cites it 12דShe recognizes the court sentencing for a misdemeanor occupies the best position to weigh the statutory factors and the court’s weighing of the factors shall not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Polick, 655 N.E.2d 820 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10דThe trial court abused its discretions [sic] in failing to consider the sentencing criteria in R.C. 2929.22. “II. The trial court erred in imposing fines when it imposed a maximum jail sentence, and such error was a violation of [R.”
State v. Maggette, 2016-Ohio-5554. · cites it 5ד21 and R.C. 2929.22. Since the record establishes that trial court considered all required sentencing statutes, we conclude the maximum sentences on Maggette’s unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and sexual impositions charges are not contrary to law.”
State v. Thadur, 2016-Ohio-417. · cites it 11ד{¶23} In her Second Assignment of Error, appellant argues the trial court erroneously failed to consider the factors for misdemeanor sentencing under R.C. 2929.22 in ordering maximum consecutive jail terms.”
State v. Picklesimer, 2012-Ohio-1282. · cites it 7ד2d 796, at ¶ 8 (“Although R.C. 2929.22 does not set forth requirements for imposing maximum or consecutive sentences, it does set forth factors that must be considered when determining whether a jail term is appropriate.”
State v. Jones, 2017-Ohio-413. · cites it 7דLaw and Analysis {¶ 11} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the court should vacate his maximum jail sentence because he did not commit the worst form of the offense and because the court failed to consider the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22.…”
State v. Downie, 918 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9ד3 {¶ 43} “The trial court committed reversible error and abused its discretion in imposing consecutive jail sentences contrary to the consistency and proportionality guidelines of Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.”
State v. Hittle, 2019-Ohio-5172. · cites it 14ד{¶8} “‘We review a trial court’s sentence on a misdemeanor violation under an abuse of discretion standard.”
City of Columbus v. Jones, 529 N.E.2d 947 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 7ד13 sentencing criteria which parallel those found in R.C. 2929.22 and •2929.12. In particular, the trial court is required by R.”
State v. Burley, 2017-Ohio-378. “He states the court disregarded the sentencing criteria, failed to discuss the factors, and was motivated by factors other than those listed in the statute.”
State v. Nuby, 2016-Ohio-8157. “She recognizes the court sentencing for a misdemeanor occupies the best position to weigh the statutory factors and the court’s weighing of the factors shall not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 8} “The trial court failed to follow O.R.C. 2929.22 when imposing sentence upon the defendant.”
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 8} “The trial court failed to follow O.R.C. 2929.22 when imposing sentence upon the defendant.”
State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-733. “{¶2} Williams initially asserts that the trial court erred because it failed to consider the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.22. Because the trial court’s sentence was within the statutory range and Williams makes no affirmative showing to rebut the presumption that the trial…”
State v. Picklesimer, 2012-Ohio-1282. “2d 796, at ¶ 8 (“Although R.C. 2929.22 does not set forth requirements for imposing maximum or consecutive sentences, it does set forth factors that must be considered when determining whether a jail term is appropriate.”
State v. Nuby, 2016-Ohio-8157. “She recognizes the court sentencing for a misdemeanor occupies the best position to weigh the statutory factors and the court’s weighing of the factors shall not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Burley, 2017-Ohio-378. “He states the court disregarded the sentencing criteria, failed to discuss the factors, and was motivated by factors other than those listed in the statute.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(1)(a): 30 cases
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 8} “The trial court failed to follow O.R.C. 2929.22 when imposing sentence upon the defendant.”
State v. Burley, 2017-Ohio-378. “He states the court disregarded the sentencing criteria, failed to discuss the factors, and was motivated by factors other than those listed in the statute.”
State v. Burley, 2017-Ohio-378. “He states the court disregarded the sentencing criteria, failed to discuss the factors, and was motivated by factors other than those listed in the statute.”
State v. Burley, 2017-Ohio-378. “He states the court disregarded the sentencing criteria, failed to discuss the factors, and was motivated by factors other than those listed in the statute.”
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 8} “The trial court failed to follow O.R.C. 2929.22 when imposing sentence upon the defendant.”
State v. Burley, 2017-Ohio-378. “He states the court disregarded the sentencing criteria, failed to discuss the factors, and was motivated by factors other than those listed in the statute.”
State v. Nuby, 2016-Ohio-8157. “She recognizes the court sentencing for a misdemeanor occupies the best position to weigh the statutory factors and the court’s weighing of the factors shall not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Thadur, 2016-Ohio-417. “{¶23} In her Second Assignment of Error, appellant argues the trial court erroneously failed to consider the factors for misdemeanor sentencing under R.C. 2929.22 in ordering maximum consecutive jail terms.”
State v. Jones, 2017-Ohio-413. “Law and Analysis {¶ 11} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the court should vacate his maximum jail sentence because he did not commit the worst form of the offense and because the court failed to consider the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22.…”
State v. Maggette, 2016-Ohio-5554. “21 and R.C. 2929.22. Since the record establishes that trial court considered all required sentencing statutes, we conclude the maximum sentences on Maggette’s unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and sexual impositions charges are not contrary to law.”
State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-733. “{¶2} Williams initially asserts that the trial court erred because it failed to consider the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.22. Because the trial court’s sentence was within the statutory range and Williams makes no affirmative showing to rebut the presumption that the trial…”
State v. Nuby, 2016-Ohio-8157. “She recognizes the court sentencing for a misdemeanor occupies the best position to weigh the statutory factors and the court’s weighing of the factors shall not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Burley, 2017-Ohio-378. “He states the court disregarded the sentencing criteria, failed to discuss the factors, and was motivated by factors other than those listed in the statute.”
State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-733. “{¶2} Williams initially asserts that the trial court erred because it failed to consider the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.22. Because the trial court’s sentence was within the statutory range and Williams makes no affirmative showing to rebut the presumption that the trial…”
State v. Polick, 655 N.E.2d 820 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “The trial court abused its discretions [sic] in failing to consider the sentencing criteria in R.C. 2929.22. “II. The trial court erred in imposing fines when it imposed a maximum jail sentence, and such error was a violation of [R.”
State v. Johnson, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 8} “The trial court failed to follow O.R.C. 2929.22 when imposing sentence upon the defendant.”
State v. Polick, 655 N.E.2d 820 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “The trial court abused its discretions [sic] in failing to consider the sentencing criteria in R.C. 2929.22. “II. The trial court erred in imposing fines when it imposed a maximum jail sentence, and such error was a violation of [R.”
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.