State v. Byer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Byer, 2006-Ohio-3093.] STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, - VS DAVID BYER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 05 CA 827 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas, Court, Case No. 05 CR 4691. JUDGMENT: Affirmed. APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: Attorney Donald R. Burns, Jr. Carroll County Prosecutor 11 E. Main Street Carrollton, OH 44615 Attorney John M. Gartrell Carroll County Public Defender P.O. Box 507 237 W. 2nd Street Dover, OH 44662 JUDGES: Hon. Mary DeGenaro Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Dated: June 14, 2006 [Cite as State v. Byer, 2006-Ohio-3093.] DeGenaro, J. {¶1} This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties' briefs. Defendant-Appellant, David Byer, appeals the decision of the Carroll County Court of Common Pleas that ordered he serve two consecutive three-year prison terms after Byer pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery. In his appeal, Byer only challenges the sentence the trial court imposed upon him. However, R.C. 2953.08(D) prohibits Byer from making those arguments on appeal. {¶2} In this case, Byer was indicted for one count of rape and two counts of sexual battery. He eventually pled guilty to the two sexual battery charges and stipulated he was a sexual predator. In exchange, the State nolled the rape count and agreed to recommend that Byer serve two consecutive three-year prison sentences. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed the recommended sentence. {¶3} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D), a defendant cannot appeal a sentence which is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge. A sentence is authorized by law if it is within the statutory range of available sentences. State v. Gray, 7th Dist. No. 02 BA 26, 2003-Ohio-805, at ¶10. {¶4} The Ohio Supreme Court s recent decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-0856, does not change this rule of law. In Foster, the Ohio Supreme Court held that portions of Ohio s felony sentencing scheme were unconstitutional and severed those unconstitutional portions from the felony sentencing statutes. In doing so, the Ohio Supreme Court left the range of sentences authorized by law unchanged. Thus, any sentence imposed upon an offender within the statutory range remains a sentence - 2- authorized by law. {¶5} In this case, the sentence the trial court imposed fell within the statutory range and, therefore, was authorized by law. Since Byer s sentence was jointly recommended, authorized by law, and imposed by the sentencing judge, he cannot appeal that sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Donofrio, P.J., concurs. Waite, J., concurs.
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.
