State v. Caserta
2019 Ohio 1798
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant David Lee Caserta pled guilty to one count of felonious assault with a deadly weapon in January 2019.
- The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Caserta to two years in prison.
- In addition to the prison term, the court ordered Caserta to have no contact with the victim.
- Caserta appealed, arguing the sentence was contrary to law because the court imposed both a prison term and a community-control sanction (no-contact order) for the same offense.
- The State conceded the sentencing error. The appellate court reviewed the claim under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose both a prison term and a no-contact order for the same felony | State conceded error; court should not impose both for same offense | Caserta argued sentence was contrary to law because no-contact order is a community-control sanction and cannot accompany a prison term for the same count | The no-contact order (community-control sanction) was vacated; judgment affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 35 N.E.3d 512 (Ohio 2015) (no-contact order is a community-control sanction and cannot be imposed together with a prison term for the same offense)
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Brown, 99 N.E.3d 1135 (Ohio 2017) (definition of when a sentence is "contrary to law")
- State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio 2013) (trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range but must consider statutory sentencing criteria)