Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2953
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08 (2026)

Appeal as a matter of right - grounds

✓ 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:
March 22, 2019
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 201 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) In addition to any other right to appeal and except as provided in division (D) of this section, a defendant who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony may appeal as a matter of right the sentence imposed upon the defendant on one of the following grounds:

(1) The sentence consisted of or included the maximum definite prison term allowed for the offense by division (A) of section 2929.14 or section 2929.142 of the Revised Code or, with respect to a non-life felony indefinite prison term, the longest minimum prison term allowed for the offense by division (A)(1)(a) or (2)(a) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, the maximum definite prison term or longest minimum prison term was not required for the offense pursuant to Chapter 2925. or any other provision of the Revised Code, and the court imposed the sentence under one of the following circumstances:

(a) The sentence was imposed for only one offense.

(b) The sentence was imposed for two or more offenses arising out of a single incident, and the court imposed the maximum definite prison term or longest minimum prison term for the offense of the highest degree.

(2) The sentence consisted of or included a prison term and the offense for which it was imposed is a felony of the fourth or fifth degree or is a felony drug offense that is a violation of a provision of Chapter 2925. of the Revised Code and that is specified as being subject to division (B) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code for purposes of sentencing. If the court specifies that it found one or more of the factors in division (B)(1)(b) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code to apply relative to the defendant, the defendant is not entitled under this division to appeal as a matter of right the sentence imposed upon the offender.

(3) The person was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violent sex offense or a designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense, was adjudicated a sexually violent predator in relation to that offense, and was sentenced pursuant to division (A)(3) of section 2971.03 of the Revised Code, if the minimum term of the indefinite term imposed pursuant to division (A)(3) of section 2971.03 of the Revised Code is the longest term available for the offense from among the range of definite terms listed in section 2929.14 of the Revised Code or, with respect to a non-life felony indefinite prison term, the longest minimum prison term allowed for the offense by division (A)(1)(a) or (2)(a) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code. As used in this division, "designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense" and "violent sex offense" have the same meanings as in section 2971.01 of the Revised Code. As used in this division, "adjudicated a sexually violent predator" has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code, and a person is "adjudicated a sexually violent predator" in the same manner and the same circumstances as are described in that section.

(4) The sentence is contrary to law.

(5) The sentence consisted of an additional prison term of ten years imposed pursuant to division (B)(2)(a) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code.

(B) In addition to any other right to appeal and except as provided in division (D) of this section, a prosecuting attorney, a city director of law, village solicitor, or similar chief legal officer of a municipal corporation, or the attorney general, if one of those persons prosecuted the case, may appeal as a matter of right a sentence imposed upon a defendant who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony or, in the circumstances described in division (B)(3) of this section the modification of a sentence imposed upon such a defendant, on any of the following grounds:

(1) The sentence did not include a prison term despite a presumption favoring a prison term for the offense for which it was imposed, as set forth in section 2929.13 or Chapter 2925. of the Revised Code.

(2) The sentence is contrary to law.

(3) The sentence is a modification under section 2929.20 of the Revised Code of a sentence that was imposed for a felony of the first or second degree.

(C)(1) In addition to the right to appeal a sentence granted under division (A) or (B) of this section, a defendant who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony may seek leave to appeal a sentence imposed upon the defendant on the basis that the sentencing judge has imposed consecutive sentences under division (C)(3) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code and that the consecutive sentences exceed the maximum definite prison term allowed by division (A) of that section for the most serious offense of which the defendant was convicted or, with respect to a non-life felony indefinite prison term, exceed the longest minimum prison term allowed by division (A)(1)(a) or (2)(a) of that section for the most serious such offense. Upon the filing of a motion under this division, the court of appeals may grant leave to appeal the sentence if the court determines that the allegation included as the basis of the motion is true.

(2) A defendant may seek leave to appeal an additional sentence imposed upon the defendant pursuant to division (B)(2)(a) or (b) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code if the additional sentence is for a definite prison term that is longer than five years.

(D)(1) A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.

(2) Except as provided in division (C)(2) of this section, a sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is imposed pursuant to division (B)(2)(b) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a defendant retains all rights to appeal as provided under this chapter or any other provision of the Revised Code. A defendant has the right to appeal under this chapter or any other provision of the Revised Code the court's application of division (B)(2)(c) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code.

(3) A sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 of the Revised Code is not subject to review under this section.

(E) A defendant, prosecuting attorney, city director of law, village solicitor, or chief municipal legal officer shall file an appeal of a sentence under this section to a court of appeals within the time limits specified in Rule 4(B) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, provided that if the appeal is pursuant to division (B)(3) of this section, the time limits specified in that rule shall not commence running until the court grants the motion that makes the sentence modification in question. A sentence appeal under this section shall be consolidated with any other appeal in the case. If no other appeal is filed, the court of appeals may review only the portions of the trial record that pertain to sentencing.

(F) On the appeal of a sentence under this section, the record to be reviewed shall include all of the following, as applicable:

(1) Any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed. An appellate court that reviews a presentence investigation report prepared pursuant to section 2947.06 or 2951.03 of the Revised Code or Criminal Rule 32.2 in connection with the appeal of a sentence under this section shall comply with division (D)(3) of section 2951.03 of the Revised Code when the appellate court is not using the presentence investigation report, and the appellate court's use of a presentence investigation report of that nature in connection with the appeal of a sentence under this section does not affect the otherwise confidential character of the contents of that report as described in division (D)(1) of section 2951.03 of the Revised Code and does not cause that report to become a public record, as defined in section 149.43 of the Revised Code, following the appellate court's use of the report.

(2) The trial record in the case in which the sentence was imposed;

(3) Any oral or written statements made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed;

(4) Any written findings that the court was required to make in connection with the modification of the sentence pursuant to a judicial release under division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code.

(G)(1) If the sentencing court was required to make the findings required by division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13 or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, or to state the findings of the trier of fact required by division (B)(2)(e) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, relative to the imposition or modification of the sentence, and if the sentencing court failed to state the required findings on the record, the court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall remand the case to the sentencing court and instruct the sentencing court to state, on the record, the required findings.

(2) 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.

The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:

(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;

(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

(H) A judgment or final order of a court of appeals under this section may be appealed, by leave of court, to the supreme court.

(I) As used in this section, "non-life felony indefinite prison term" has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5,085 cases (2,200 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. · cites it 58× “{¶ 12} The Eighth District’s en banc decision in Jones III focused on R.C. 2953.08. In relevant part, R.C. 2953.”
State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, 231 N.E.3d 1109. · cites it 73× “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 11} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. · cites it 90× “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923. · cites it 71× “For ease of discussion, we will refer to the current version of R.C. 2953.08. 2 January Term, 2010 {¶ 4} On the day of trial, Underwood entered pleas of no contest to the four counts.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. · cites it 62× “{¶ 40} In reaching that decision, this court described the history of R.C. 2953.08, the history of appellate review of felony sentences, and how the lead opinion in Kalish fit within the historical context.”
State v. Gwynne, 2022-Ohio-4607, 231 N.E.3d 1035. · cites it 58× “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 52} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
State v. Grevious, 2022-Ohio-4361, 223 N.E.3d 323. · cites it 116× “der the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the federal provisions’ counterparts under the Ohio Constitution because the statutory provision denies appellate review to offenders, like Grevious, with noncapital sentences for aggravated murder…”
State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231. · cites it 19× “{¶ 18} Marcum begins with the first sentence of R.C.”
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. · cites it 27× “Based on the history of the amendments to R.C. 2953.08, this court held that R.C. 2953.”
State v. Toles (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-3531, 186 N.E.3d 784. · cites it 30× “This Court reversed, finding that although R.C. 2953.08 once authorized appellate courts to vacate or modify a sentence based on the fact that “the record does not support the sentence,” or that the sentence was “otherwise contrary to law,” the provision permitting a general…”
State v. Roberts, 2017-Ohio-9014, 101 N.E.3d 1067. · cites it 58× “If the legislature took issue with the court’s interpretation of R.C. 2953.08 over the years, the statute could have been amended.”
State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069. · cites it 41× “2-13-02, 2013-Ohio-3076, ¶ 14 (the court applied R.C. 2953.08 after Kalish); State v. Worth, 10th Dist.”
Show all 5,085 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(0)(3): 1 case
Keontae Nelson v. Bill Cool, No. 2:24-cv-04301 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 15, 2025).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(4): 1 case
State v. Kozic, 2016-Ohio-8556.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(A): 174 cases
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231. “{¶ 18} Marcum begins with the first sentence of R.C.”
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923. “For ease of discussion, we will refer to the current version of R.C. 2953.08. 2 January Term, 2010 {¶ 4} On the day of trial, Underwood entered pleas of no contest to the four counts.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. “{¶ 40} In reaching that decision, this court described the history of R.C. 2953.08, the history of appellate review of felony sentences, and how the lead opinion in Kalish fit within the historical context.”
State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069. “2-13-02, 2013-Ohio-3076, ¶ 14 (the court applied R.C. 2953.08 after Kalish); State v. Worth, 10th Dist.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(A)(1): 57 cases
State v. Pawlak, 2016-Ohio-5926.
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Grevious, 2022-Ohio-4361, 223 N.E.3d 323. “der the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the federal provisions’ counterparts under the Ohio Constitution because the statutory provision denies appellate review to offenders, like Grevious, with noncapital sentences for aggravated murder…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(A)(1)(A): 1 case
State v. Thompson, 2010-Ohio-3278.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(A)(1)(a): 17 cases
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Brill, 2023-Ohio-404, 207 N.E.3d 1274.
State v. Weaver, 751 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2001).
State v. Baker, 787 N.E.2d 17 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2002).
State v. Moore, 756 N.E.2d 686 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(A)(1)(b): 12 cases
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Webb, 2019-Ohio-4195.
State v. Scheer, 816 N.E.2d 602 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2004).
State v. Swonger, 2019-Ohio-4606.
State v. Akins-Daniels, 2016-Ohio-7048.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(A)(2): 23 cases
State v. Beasley, 731 N.E.2d 1223 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1999).
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Edmonson, 715 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1999).
State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St. 3d 324 (1999).
State v. Jones, 2019-Ohio-1772.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(A)(3): 3 cases
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Grevious, 2022-Ohio-4361, 223 N.E.3d 323. “der the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the federal provisions’ counterparts under the Ohio Constitution because the statutory provision denies appellate review to offenders, like Grevious, with noncapital sentences for aggravated murder…”
State v. Thomas, 2021-Ohio-3175.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(A)(4): 179 cases
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332.
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923. “For ease of discussion, we will refer to the current version of R.C. 2953.08. 2 January Term, 2010 {¶ 4} On the day of trial, Underwood entered pleas of no contest to the four counts.”
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “{¶ 12} The Eighth District’s en banc decision in Jones III focused on R.C. 2953.08. In relevant part, R.C. 2953.”
State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-2669, 951 N.E.2d 381.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(A)(5): 4 cases
State v. Grevious, 2022-Ohio-4361, 223 N.E.3d 323. “der the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the federal provisions’ counterparts under the Ohio Constitution because the statutory provision denies appellate review to offenders, like Grevious, with noncapital sentences for aggravated murder…”
State v. Campbell, 2016-Ohio-7613.
State v. Lauharn, 2011-Ohio-4292.
State v. Dixon, 2018-Ohio-4138.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(B): 30 cases
State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069. “2-13-02, 2013-Ohio-3076, ¶ 14 (the court applied R.C. 2953.08 after Kalish); State v. Worth, 10th Dist.”
State v. Nichter, 2016-Ohio-7268, 63 N.E.3d 1219.
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Cunningham, 113 Ohio St. 3d 108 (2007).
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(B)(1): 8 cases
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Grevious, 2022-Ohio-4361, 223 N.E.3d 323. “der the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the federal provisions’ counterparts under the Ohio Constitution because the statutory provision denies appellate review to offenders, like Grevious, with noncapital sentences for aggravated murder…”
State v. Jama, 939 N.E.2d 1309 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2010).
State v. Sherman, 2012-Ohio-3958.
State v. Hamad, 2019-Ohio-2394.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(B)(1)(a): 1 case
State v. Beasley, 731 N.E.2d 1223 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1999).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(B)(2): 68 cases
State v. Simpkins, 884 N.E.2d 568 (Ohio 2008).
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-7658, 71 N.E.3d 234.
State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332.
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923. “For ease of discussion, we will refer to the current version of R.C. 2953.08. 2 January Term, 2010 {¶ 4} On the day of trial, Underwood entered pleas of no contest to the four counts.”
State v. Cunningham, 113 Ohio St. 3d 108 (2007).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(B)(3): 27 cases
State v. Sykes, 2018-Ohio-4774, 124 N.E.3d 406.
State v. Cunningham, 113 Ohio St. 3d 108 (2007).
State v. Nichter, 2016-Ohio-7268, 63 N.E.3d 1219.
State v. Nichter, 2019-Ohio-279, 129 N.E.3d 984.
State v. Belcher, 2017-Ohio-6943, 94 N.E.3d 945.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(C): 34 cases
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Albert, 705 N.E.2d 1274 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1997).
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Howard, 2013-Ohio-2884.
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(C)(1): 21 cases
State v. Morgan, 2014-Ohio-5661.
State v. Wardlow, 2014-Ohio-5740.
State v. Chavez, 2013-Ohio-4700.
State v. Graham, 2014-Ohio-4250.
State v. Scott, 2014-Ohio-2993.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(C)(2): 3 cases
State v. Martin, 2025-Ohio-744.
State v. Cragwell, 2025-Ohio-2211.
State v. Hall, 2026-Ohio-1042.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(C)(2)(a): 1 case
State v. Akins, 2024-Ohio-1491.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(C)(3): 2 cases
State v. Austin, 2019-Ohio-1185.
State v. Morgan, 2014-Ohio-5661.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(D): 149 cases
State v. Porterfield, 829 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 2005).
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923. “For ease of discussion, we will refer to the current version of R.C. 2953.08. 2 January Term, 2010 {¶ 4} On the day of trial, Underwood entered pleas of no contest to the four counts.”
State v. Sergent (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-2696, 69 N.E.3d 627.
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(D)(1): 386 cases
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923. “For ease of discussion, we will refer to the current version of R.C. 2953.08. 2 January Term, 2010 {¶ 4} On the day of trial, Underwood entered pleas of no contest to the four counts.”
State v. Sergent (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-2696, 69 N.E.3d 627.
State v. Lee, 2018-Ohio-1839, 112 N.E.3d 65.
State v. Williams, 2020-Ohio-4467.
State v. Straley (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-5206, 159 Ohio St. 3d 82.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(D)(11): 3 cases
State v. Tellis, 2023-Ohio-1715.
State v. Watts, 2025-Ohio-305.
State v. Rollins, 2026-Ohio-623.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(D)(3): 83 cases
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Grevious, 2022-Ohio-4361, 223 N.E.3d 323. “der the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the federal provisions’ counterparts under the Ohio Constitution because the statutory provision denies appellate review to offenders, like Grevious, with noncapital sentences for aggravated murder…”
State v. Nitsche, 2016-Ohio-3170.
State v. Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646.
State v. Austin, 2019-Ohio-1185.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(D)(4): 1 case
State v. Stumph, 2021-Ohio-723.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(D)(I): 1 case
State v. Triplett, 2011-Ohio-4628.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(D)(l): 1 case
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923. “For ease of discussion, we will refer to the current version of R.C. 2953.08. 2 January Term, 2010 {¶ 4} On the day of trial, Underwood entered pleas of no contest to the four counts.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(E): 10 cases
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-7658, 71 N.E.3d 234.
State v. Holdcroft, 2013-Ohio-5014, 1 N.E.3d 382.
In re J.S., 2013-Ohio-1721, 989 N.E.2d 978.
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952. “08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from considering the constitutionality of an aggravated-murder sentence imposed on a juvenile offender tried as an adult {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08 was enacted in 1996 as part of Am.”
State v. Baker, 787 N.E.2d 17 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2002).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(F): 124 cases
State v. Toles (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-3531, 186 N.E.3d 784. “This Court reversed, finding that although R.C. 2953.08 once authorized appellate courts to vacate or modify a sentence based on the fact that “the record does not support the sentence,” or that the sentence was “otherwise contrary to law,” the provision permitting a general…”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, 231 N.E.3d 1109. “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 11} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. “Based on the history of the amendments to R.C. 2953.08, this court held that R.C. 2953.”
State v. Gwynne, 2022-Ohio-4607, 231 N.E.3d 1035. “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 52} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(F)(1): 93 cases
State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, 231 N.E.3d 1109. “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 11} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. “Based on the history of the amendments to R.C. 2953.08, this court held that R.C. 2953.”
State v. Gwynne, 2022-Ohio-4607, 231 N.E.3d 1035. “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 52} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
State v. Roberts, 2017-Ohio-9014, 101 N.E.3d 1067. “If the legislature took issue with the court’s interpretation of R.C. 2953.08 over the years, the statute could have been amended.”
State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083, 243 N.E.3d 50.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(F)(2): 3 cases
State v. Napier, 2024-Ohio-1837.
State v. Willis, 2024-Ohio-2210.
State v. Van Tielen, 2014-Ohio-4421.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(F)(3): 9 cases
State v. Washington, 2013-Ohio-4982.
State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St. 3d 427 (2013).
State v. Martin, 736 N.E.2d 907 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1999).
State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-5915.
State v. Helms, 2013-Ohio-5530.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G): 661 cases
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “{¶ 12} The Eighth District’s en banc decision in Jones III focused on R.C. 2953.08. In relevant part, R.C. 2953.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. “{¶ 40} In reaching that decision, this court described the history of R.C. 2953.08, the history of appellate review of felony sentences, and how the lead opinion in Kalish fit within the historical context.”
State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, 231 N.E.3d 1109. “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 11} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231. “{¶ 18} Marcum begins with the first sentence of R.C.”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(1): 75 cases
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “{¶ 12} The Eighth District’s en banc decision in Jones III focused on R.C. 2953.08. In relevant part, R.C. 2953.”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. “Based on the history of the amendments to R.C. 2953.08, this court held that R.C. 2953.”
State v. Oller, 2017-Ohio-814, 85 N.E.3d 1135.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(1)(a): 14 cases
State v. Beasley, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018).
State v. Mushrush, 733 N.E.2d 252 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1999).
State v. Gary, 750 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2001).
State v. Garcia, 710 N.E.2d 783 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1998).
State v. Avery, 709 N.E.2d 875 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1998).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(1)(b): 5 cases
State v. Edmonson, 715 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1999).
State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St. 3d 324 (1999).
State v. Kawaguchi, 739 N.E.2d 392 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2000).
State v. Ward, 732 N.E.2d 1055 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1999).
State v. Beasley, 731 N.E.2d 1223 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1999).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(1)(c): 1 case
State v. Sherman, 2012-Ohio-3958.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(1)(d): 1 case
State v. McLemore, 737 N.E.2d 125 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2000).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(2): 3707 cases
State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, 231 N.E.3d 1109. “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 11} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
State v. Gwynne, 2022-Ohio-4607, 231 N.E.3d 1035. “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 52} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. “{¶ 40} In reaching that decision, this court described the history of R.C. 2953.08, the history of appellate review of felony sentences, and how the lead opinion in Kalish fit within the historical context.”
State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231. “{¶ 18} Marcum begins with the first sentence of R.C.”
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “{¶ 12} The Eighth District’s en banc decision in Jones III focused on R.C. 2953.08. In relevant part, R.C. 2953.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(2)(A): 5 cases
State v. Sallis, 2020-Ohio-3924.
State v. Davis, 2025-Ohio-421.
State v. Mason, 2026-Ohio-2039.
State v. Parsons, 2025-Ohio-1324.
State v. Fisher, 2025-Ohio-4412.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(2)(B): 4 cases
State v. Boone, 2024-Ohio-6116.
State v. Peoples, 2025-Ohio-1016.
State v. Davis, 2025-Ohio-421.
State v. Fisher, 2025-Ohio-4412.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(2)(a): 841 cases
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “{¶ 12} The Eighth District’s en banc decision in Jones III focused on R.C. 2953.08. In relevant part, R.C. 2953.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. “{¶ 40} In reaching that decision, this court described the history of R.C. 2953.08, the history of appellate review of felony sentences, and how the lead opinion in Kalish fit within the historical context.”
State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, 231 N.E.3d 1109. “08(G)(2) is unambiguous and provides appellate courts with limited authority to review consecutive sentences {¶ 11} Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08. This court has recognized that “[o]rdinarily, appellate courts defer to trial courts’ broad…”
State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, 262 N.E.3d 283.
State v. Orzechowski, 2021-Ohio-985.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(2)(a)(b): 1 case
State v. Beverly, 2016-Ohio-8078, 75 N.E.3d 847.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(2)(b): 704 cases
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “{¶ 12} The Eighth District’s en banc decision in Jones III focused on R.C. 2953.08. In relevant part, R.C. 2953.”
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. “Based on the history of the amendments to R.C. 2953.08, this court held that R.C. 2953.”
State v. Gwynne (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. “{¶ 40} In reaching that decision, this court described the history of R.C. 2953.08, the history of appellate review of felony sentences, and how the lead opinion in Kalish fit within the historical context.”
State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332.
State v. Orzechowski, 2021-Ohio-985.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(3)(b): 1 case
State v. Penn, 2021-Ohio-1761.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(4): 5 cases
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. “{¶ 12} The Eighth District’s en banc decision in Jones III focused on R.C. 2953.08. In relevant part, R.C. 2953.”
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68. “Based on the history of the amendments to R.C. 2953.08, this court held that R.C. 2953.”
State v. Orzechowski, 2021-Ohio-985.
State v. Cardwell, 2016-Ohio-5591.
State v. Good, 2022-Ohio-1981.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(G)(C)(4): 1 case
State v. Correa, 2015-Ohio-3955.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(a)(2): 1 case
State v. Baker, 787 N.E.2d 17 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2002).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(g): 1 case
State v. Hughes, 2021-Ohio-2764.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(g)(2): 2 cases
State v. Thompson, 2021-Ohio-4027.
State v. Contes, 2024-Ohio-2580.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08(g)(2)(b): 1 case
State v. El-Amin, 2021-Ohio-4342.
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.