State v. Pelfrey

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Pelfrey, 2006-Ohio-1605.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case No. 20763 vs. : T.C. Case No. 04-CR-1855 DAVID S. PELFREY : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : ........... OPINION Rendered on the 31st day of March , 2006. ........... MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., Prosecuting Attorney, By: JOHNNA M. SHIA, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Atty. Reg. #0067685, Appellate Division, P.O. Box 972, 301 W. th Third Street, 5 Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee WILLIAM T. DALY, Atty. Reg. #0069300, 1717 Liberty Tower, 120 W. Second Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ............. BROGAN, J. {¶ 1} David Pelfrey appeals from his conviction in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court of felony domestic violence. Pelfrey s victim was his former wife and current girlfriend who was alleged in the indictment to be a family or household member despite the fact they were not presently married. The alleged assault occurred on May 15, 2004, and Pelfrey was convicted on July 20, 2004. 2 {¶ 2} In a single assignment of error, Pelfrey contends R.C. 2921.25(A) is unconstitutional as a result of the Marriage Amendment, Section 11, Article XV of the Ohio Constitution, to the extent that the statute recognizes a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage. {¶ 3} The State argues that the Marriage Amendment does not render R.C. 2919.25(A) unconstitutional and in any event it has no application to Pelfrey since his conduct and conviction preceded the effective date of the Marriage Amendment. The effective date of the Marriage Amendment was December 2, 2004. We agree the Amendment is not applicable to Pelfrey. See State v. Roosevelt Newell, 2005-Ohio2848, Stark App. Case No. 2004CA00264. Appellant s assignment of error is Overruled. {¶ 4} The judgment of the trial court is Affirmed. ........... FAIN, J., and DONOVAN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Johnna M. Shia William T. Daly Hon. Michael Tucker

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.