State v. Bayless
| Decision Date | 03 February 1982 |
| Citation | 4 Ohio App.3d 301,448 N.E.2d 511 |
| Parties | , 4 O.B.R. 552 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BAYLESS, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
It is within the trial court's discretion whether to make a presentence report and a victim impact statement available to the defendant.
Martin Frantz, Wooster, for appellee.
Mark W. Baserman, Wooster, for appellant.
Defendant-appellant, Robert Bayless, pled guilty to a violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), corruption of a minor. His plea was accepted and he was sentenced thereon. He now appeals. We affirm.
The defendant, a teacher at Wooster High School, was charged in a bill of information with engaging in sexual conduct with a fifteen year old girl, a violation of R.C. 2907.04. In a plea bargain arrangement it was understood that he would plead guilty and in return the prosecutor agreed that " * * * additional charges involving other students and other Wooster High School former students would not be lodged against the defendant." Following defendant's acknowledging that he understood the rights that he would be waiving by pleading guilty, the court accepted his plea.
The court then ordered that a presentence investigation be conducted and a report prepared for the court. This was done. In addition, pursuant to R.C. 2947.051, a victim impact statement was prepared for the court. At the sentencing hearing, the court had the report and statement, but refused to allow defense counsel to see them. The court then imposed the minimum sentence of one to ten years in prison.
With respect to disclosure of the presentence investigation, Crim.R. 32.2(C)(1) provides:
"Except in cases of aggravated murder, the report of the presentence investigation shall be confidential and need not be furnished to the defendant or his counsel or the prosecuting attorney unless the court, in its discretion, so orders."
And with respect to the victim impact statement, R.C. 2947.051(C) provides:
* * * " (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Piesciuk v. Kelly, Case No. 1:14-cv-185
...within the trial court's discretion whether to make a victim impact statement available to a defendant. State v. Bayless (1982), 4 Ohio App.3d 301, 4 Ohio B. 552, 448 N.E.2d 511.[*P33] The only case in support of his proposition, cited byPiesciuk, is Stewart v. Erwin (C.A.6, 2007), 503 F.3d......
-
State v. Roberson
...282, 13 OBR 346, 469 N.E.2d 548; State v. Stern (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 65, 20 OBR 69, 484 N.E.2d 255; and State v. Bayless (1982), 4 Ohio App.3d 301, 4 OBR 552, 448 N.E.2d 511. However, in these three cases, the court either avoided the constitutional issue or summarily dismissed the consti......
-
State v. Eric D. Roberson
... ... Ninth District Court of Appeals has, on several occasions, ... addressed the constitutionality of Ohio's presentence ... investigation statute. See State v. Gotsis (1984), ... 13 Ohio App.3d 282; State v. Stern (1984), 20 Ohio ... App.3d 65; and State v. Bayless (1982), 4 Ohio ... App.3d 301. However, in these three cases, the court either ... avoided the constitutional issue or summarily dismissed the ... constitutional claim in dicta ... We ... conclude that the Gardner holding requiring full ... disclosure ... ...
-
State v. Masterson, 2008 Ohio 4704 (Ohio App. 9/18/2008)
...it is within the trial court's discretion whether to make a victim impact statement available to a defendant. State v. Bayless (1982), 4 Ohio App. 3d 301, 302, 448 N.E.2d 511; State v. Lunsford (Mar. 23, 2001), Montgomery App. No. 18318, at 4. The trial court properly exercised its discreti......