State v. Livingston, 9 N.E.3d 1117

Defendant Nathaniel Livingston pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification; plea agreement called for an aggregate four-year sentence.
The trial court imposed the agreed sentence and, on the record and in the judgment entry, stated Livingston would be ineligible for "risk reduction, intensive prison programs, earned days of credit, transitional control, judicial release, or any other early release program."
Livingston does not dispute he agreed to the plea term but appealed the portion eliminating eligibility for earned days of credit under R.C. 2967.193.
The appeal is governed by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1): a jointly recommended sentence is reviewable only if not authorized by law.
R.C. 2967.193 authorizes the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to award or deny earned-credit days and assigns eligibility determinations to the DRC, not the sentencing court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may, as part of sentencing, bar an offender from earning statutory earned days of credit under R.C. 2967.193	State: The sentence was part of a plea agreement and thus valid as imposed	Livingston: The court lacked statutory authority to deny eligibility for earned-credit days; R.C. 2967.193 vests that authority in the DRC	The court held the trial court lacked authority to bar earned-credit eligibility; that portion of the sentence is not authorized by law and is vacated

State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923 (sentence jointly recommended by state and defendant is reviewable only if not authorized by law)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332 (trial courts may impose only sentences authorized by statute)
Colegrove v. Burns, 175 Ohio St. 437, 195 N.E.2d 811 (courts lack inherent authority to create sentences beyond statutory grant)