State v. Beard
2021 Ohio 2384
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Defendant Herbert M. Beard, Jr. was arrested after admitting he killed Sam Pizzuto with a baseball bat; police found the victim beaten in his home and the van later sold by Beard.
- Beard was indicted on multiple counts; he pleaded guilty to count two (murder under R.C. 2903.01(B)) and count nine (burglary, R.C. 2911.12(A)(1)).
- The trial court found Beard competent to stand trial, accepted the guilty pleas, and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole on the murder count and eight years consecutive on the burglary count.
- On appeal Beard raised three assignments of error: (1) R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and Ohio Constitution, (2) he was denied due process/a right to appeal (structural error), and (3) R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) violates Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process.
- The appeals court addressed whether R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) precludes appellate review of murder/ aggravated-murder sentences and whether Beard was improperly sentenced under the wrong statutory framework.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Beard's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is unconstitutional as foreclosing appellate review and thus violative of the Eighth Amendment | R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not bar constitutional challenges on appeal; alternative appellate routes exist | R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) effectively forecloses appellate review of his life-without-parole sentence and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment | Rejected — court declined to reach facial constitutionality; Patrick (Ohio Sup. Ct.) establishes D(3) does not preclude constitutional sentencing appeals and Beard did not raise a preserved constitutional challenge |
| Whether Beard was denied due process/a right to appeal because he was sentenced under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) rather than R.C. 2929.03(A)(1) (structural error) | Sentencing was proper under R.C. 2929.03(A)(1); R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is a limitation on review, not a sentencing statute | Beard contends he was structurally denied appellate review and thus due process | Rejected — trial court sentenced under R.C. 2929.03(A)(1); R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) governs appellate-review limits, not sentencing; D(3) does not eliminate appellate options under R.C. 2953.02 |
| Whether Beard’s due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment is valid because R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) prevents review | State: D(3) does not foreclose constitutional appeals and Beard failed to preserve or establish an as-applied or facial violation | Beard: D(3) violates procedural due process by denying appellate review of his sentence | Rejected — Beard waived many constitutional arguments by failing to raise them below and did not demonstrate plain error, an as-applied violation, or gross disproportionality |
Key Cases Cited
- Awan v. State, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (constitutional arguments ordinarily waived if not raised in trial court)
- In re M.D., 38 Ohio St.3d 149 (Ohio 1988) (court may consider constitutional challenges in plain-error or exceptional circumstances)
- In re D.S., 152 Ohio St.3d 109 (Ohio 2017) (courts should avoid deciding constitutional questions unless necessary)
- State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 2004) (same principle: avoid constitutional rulings unless absolutely necessary)
- State v. Burke, 69 N.E.3d 774 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (discussing waiver of constitutional objections when not presented to trial court)