(A) Upon the hearing of an appeal other than an appeal from a mayor's court, the appellate court may affirm the judgment or reverse it, in whole or in part, or modify it, and order the accused to be discharged or grant a new trial. The appellate court may remand the accused for the sole purpose of correcting a sentence imposed contrary to law, provided that, on an appeal of a sentence imposed upon a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony that is brought under section 2953.08 of the Revised Code, division (G) of that section applies to the court. If the judgment is reversed, the appellant shall recover from the appellee all court costs incurred to secure the reversal, including the cost of transcripts. In capital cases, when the judgment is affirmed and the day fixed for the execution is passed, the appellate court shall appoint a day for it, and the clerk of the appellate court shall issue a warrant under the seal of the appellate court, to the sheriff of the proper county, or the warden of the appropriate state correctional institution, commanding the sheriff or warden to carry the sentence into execution on the day so appointed. The sheriff or warden shall execute and return the warrant as in other cases, and the clerk shall record the warrant and return.
(B) As used in this section, "appellate court" means, for a case in which a sentence of death is imposed for an offense committed before January 1, 1995, both the court of appeals and the supreme court, and for a case in which a sentence of death is imposed for an offense committed on or after January 1, 1995, the supreme court.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6803 (Ohio 2020).
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6803 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 3ד24 January Term, 2020 {¶ 63} In addition to these independent statutory rights to appeal, R.C. 2953.07 separately authorizes Ohio’s courts of appeals to review criminal sentences that are claimed to be “contrary to law.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4761 (Ohio 2019). · cites it 2דSee R.C. 2953.07. {¶ 54} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides: The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.”
State v. Jones, 2024 Ohio 1083 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 2ד{¶ 29} In addition to the basic power to vacate a sentence that was imposed contrary to law and remand for resentencing, R.C. 2953.07(A), the General Assembly has also declared: The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under [R.”
State v. Williams, 814 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 3דPenix , however, does not contradict R.C. 2953.07. Rather, Penix states that, in a capital case tried by jury, correction of the sentence on remand may not be accomplished by impaneling a new jury with the power to impose a new death sentence, because R.”
State v. Grevious, 2022 Ohio 4361 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 46} Additionally, R.C.2953.07 separately authorizes Ohio’s courts of appeals to review criminal sentences that are claimed to be “contrary to law.”
State v. Davis, 528 N.E.2d 925 (Ohio 1988). “Therefore, since a convicted defendant whose sentence has been reversed must be resentenced, R.C. 2953.07, this court has no alternative but to fashion that resentencing procedure which is most consistent with existing statutory intent.”
State v. Penix, 513 N.E.2d 744 (Ohio 1987). “” R.C. 2953.07 provides in pertinent part: “Upon the hearing of an appeal other than an appeal from a mayor’s court, the appellate court may affirm the judgment or reverse it, in whole or in part, or modify it, and order the accused to be discharged or granted a new trial.”
Mansfield v. Studer, 2012 Ohio 4840 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶118} Section 3(B) (2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2953.07, give an appellate court the power to affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of an inferior court.”
State v. Aleshire, 2012 Ohio 16 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2ד19 states, in relevant part: {14} “(A) The court shall hold a sentencing hearing before imposing a sentence under this chapter upon an offender who was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony and before resentencing an offender who was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a…”
State v. Fain, 936 N.E.2d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2ד, a judgment authorized by R.C. 2953.07 and 2953.08(G)(2). 40 Therefore, I would not, at this juncture, finally decide the reopened appeals.”
State v. Harmon, 2017 Ohio 320 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Pursuant to Section 3(B) (2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2953.07, this case is remanded for proceedings in accordance with our opinion and the law.”
State v. Kline, 464 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). “See R.C. 2953.07 and 2945.15. As to the charge of carrying a concealed weapon, the judgment of said court being reversed, this case is remanded for further proceedings according to law.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4761 (Ohio 2019). “See R.C. 2953.07. {¶ 54} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides: The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.”
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6803 (Ohio 2020). “24 January Term, 2020 {¶ 63} In addition to these independent statutory rights to appeal, R.C. 2953.07 separately authorizes Ohio’s courts of appeals to review criminal sentences that are claimed to be “contrary to law.”
State v. Jones, 2024 Ohio 1083 (Ohio 2024). “{¶ 29} In addition to the basic power to vacate a sentence that was imposed contrary to law and remand for resentencing, R.C. 2953.07(A), the General Assembly has also declared: The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under [R.”
State v. Williams, 814 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio 2004). “Penix , however, does not contradict R.C. 2953.07. Rather, Penix states that, in a capital case tried by jury, correction of the sentence on remand may not be accomplished by impaneling a new jury with the power to impose a new death sentence, because 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.