Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2929 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22 (2026)

Determining appropriate sentence for misdemeanors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 20, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 234 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Williams, 2016 Ohio 733 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 21× “{¶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 16× “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 17× “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “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. Polick, 655 N.E.2d 820 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10× “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. Maggette, 2016 Ohio 5554 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “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. Thadur, 2016 Ohio 417 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “{¶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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “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. Jones, 2017 Ohio 413 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “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. Downie, 918 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “3 {¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “{¶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 7× “13 sentencing criteria which parallel those found in R.C. 2929.22 and •2929.12. In particular, the trial court is required by R.”
Show all 335 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(A) — 96 cases
State v. Burley, 2017 Ohio 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “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. Bowser, 926 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
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. Zappa, 2022 Ohio 243 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B) — 70 cases
State v. Nelson, 875 N.E.2d 137 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Kolodzaike, 2020 Ohio 1239 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Lakewood v. Dobra, 2018 Ohio 960 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Adkins, 2020 Ohio 3296 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Hogya, 2023 Ohio 342 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(1) — 93 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. Williams, 2016 Ohio 733 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “{¶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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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. Horr, 2022 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Burley, 2017 Ohio 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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, 2022 Ohio 1782 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Pippert, 2016 Ohio 1352 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(1)(b) — 8 cases
State v. Burley, 2017 Ohio 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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. Carney, 2016 Ohio 2684 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Faiola, 2022 Ohio 1126 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Strohm, 790 N.E.2d 796 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Ballish, 2026 Ohio 503 (Ohio 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(1)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Burley, 2017 Ohio 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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.”
Cleveland v. Go Invest Wisely, L.L.C., 2011 Ohio 3047 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Boroff, 2020 Ohio 5376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Yonkof, 2025 Ohio 4890 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(1)(d) — 3 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. Boroff, 2020 Ohio 5376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Coutcher, 2021 Ohio 2620 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(1)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Boroff, 2020 Ohio 5376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Yonkof, 2025 Ohio 4890 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(2) — 50 cases
State v. Burley, 2017 Ohio 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “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. Fisher, 2020 Ohio 3764 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Reeves, 2020 Ohio 5565 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Johnson, 2022 Ohio 1782 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(3) — 5 cases
State v. Todd, 2025 Ohio 2559 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Wilson, 2021 Ohio 3768 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Elzey, 2025 Ohio 5322 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Hill, 2025 Ohio 5500 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Padgelek, 2026 Ohio 817 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(3)(E)(1) — 1 case
State v. Henderson, 2020 Ohio 3164 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(6) — 1 case
State v. Ferguson, 603 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(B)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hoover, 2026 Ohio 1520 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(C) — 68 cases
State v. Thadur, 2016 Ohio 417 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “{¶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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “{¶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. Scott, 2023 Ohio 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(D) — 2 cases
City of Miamisburg v. Smith, 449 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982).
Cleveland v. Blue Spruce Entities, L.L.C., 2011 Ohio 1932 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(D)(1) — 13 cases
State v. Faircloth, 2021 Ohio 1514 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Nuby, 2016 Ohio 8157 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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, 2022 Ohio 1782 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Scott, 2023 Ohio 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(E) — 13 cases
State v. Williams, 2016 Ohio 733 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “{¶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.”
City of Maple Heights v. Dickard, 508 N.E.2d 994 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986).
City of Hamilton v. Brown, 440 N.E.2d 554 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(E)(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. McCree, 2024 Ohio 777 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(E)(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. Sheets, 2025 Ohio 5158 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.22(F) — 12 cases
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. Stevens, 605 N.E.2d 970 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Wohlgemuth, 583 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Suchevits, 740 N.E.2d 677 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Walker, 841 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 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.