[Cite as State v. Davis, 2026-Ohio-2725.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BELMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Case No. 25 BE 0058
Criminal Appeal from the
Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio
Case No. 25 CR 21
BEFORE:
Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Katelyn Dickey, Judges.
JUDGMENT:
Affirmed.
Atty. J. Kevin Flanagan, Belmont County Prosecutor, and Atty. Jacob A. Manning, Assistant Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Atty. James R. Wise, for Defendant-Appellant
Dated: July 15, 2026
–2–
WAITE, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Robert Davis appeals the December 2, 2025 judgment entry of
the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of rape. Appellant argues
solely that the trial court erred in failing to impose the joint sentencing agreement reached
by the parties. Because a trial court is not bound by a jointly-recommended sentence,
Appellant’s argument is without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} Due to Appellant’s plea agreement, the facts within the record are sparse.
The female victim is a minor, who at the time of the incident was twelve-years old. The
victim has a sister who is about the same age. It appears that Appellant was the boyfriend
of the victim’s mother, and immediately attempted to bond with the victim.
{¶3} In January of 2021, Appellant raped the victim for the first time. She went
down to the basement where he smoked marijuana and drank beer. He began touching
her inappropriately, causing her to flee to her sister’s room, but Appellant followed her.
As she feared what would happen once he reached her, she pressed record on her
phone. When he entered the room, he raped her. When her mother got home, she asked
to be taken to her grandmother’s house, as she expressed that she did not feel safe at
home. Throughout the day, Appellant sent her messages, begging her to not tell anyone
what had occurred and claiming that his actions were the result of his drinking. However,
the victim informed her grandmother about the rape. Grandmother then told the victim’s
mother, who immediately removed Appellant from the house.
{¶4} However, at some point Appellant returned to the house with the mother’s
permission and he continued to rape her, multiple times a week. He attempted to silence
Case No. 25 BE 0058
–3–
her by giving her alcohol and allowing her to vape. She did not initially disclose this
repeated behavior because she did not want to upset her mother again. Eventually,
however, she did disclose the rapes were occurring. While accusations arose that
Appellant also raped the victim’s sister during the same time period, the sister did not
make a statement to law enforcement.
{¶5} On February 6, 2025, Appellant was indicted on two counts of rape, felonies
of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), (B); two counts of unlawful sexual
conduct with a minor, felonies of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), (B)(4);
and two counts of sexual battery, felonies of the third degree in violation of R.C.
2907.03(A)(5), (B).
{¶6} On November 5, 2025, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of rape. The
remaining charges were to be dismissed. The court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation report (“PSI”) and a victim impact statement be prepared. The PSI
revealed Appellant had a lengthy criminal history, dating as far back as a juvenile record.
The report also revealed a prior conviction for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and
several violations of Appellant’s requirement to report as a sex offender.
{¶7} The state and defense counsel agreed to request a sentence of six years
of incarceration. At the sentencing hearing, a discussion occurred where the state and
defense counsel clarified that the plea agreement had been reached because of concerns
regarding the allegations of the victim’s sister and her credibility.
{¶8} Citing the seriousness of the offense, Appellant’s lengthy criminal record,
the number of Appellant’s prior sex offenses involving minors, and his lack of remorse,
the court exceeded the parties’ sentencing agreement and imposed a minimum of eight
Case No. 25 BE 0058
–4–
and a maximum of twelve years of imprisonment, in accordance with the Regan Tokes
Act. No objection was lodged at the hearing regarding the length of the sentence. This
timely appeal followed.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The Sentence of the Trial Court was contrary to law.
{¶9} Appellant contends that the trial court was obligated to impose the agreed
sentence in this case. Appellant urges that a plea agreement amounts to a contract
between the state and the defendant, and claims the court was contractually bound to
impose the sentence to which the parties had agreed.
{¶10} The state argues that the court imposed the sentence based on Appellant’s
criminal record, and that the court had warned Appellant at the plea hearing and within
the plea agreement that it was not bound by an agreement between the parties when
sentencing. The state points to a lack of an objection or even a request to allow Appellant
time to reconsider his plea.
{¶11} “[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only
if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial
court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”
State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1.
A sentence is considered to be clearly and convincingly contrary to
law if it falls outside of the statutory range for the particular degree of
offense; if the trial court failed to properly consider the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing as enumerated in R.C. 2929.11 and the
Case No. 25 BE 0058
–5–
seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12; or if the trial
court orders consecutive sentences and does not make the necessary
consecutive sentence findings.
State v. Pendland, 2021-Ohio-1313, ¶ 41 (7th Dist.); citing State v. Collins, 2017-Ohio1264, ¶ 9 (7th Dist.); State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 30.
{¶12} It is well-settled that where the trial court warned a defendant of the possible
penalties and advised the defendant that it could impose a sentence beyond the parties’
agreed recommendation, the court is not a party to that contract and is not bound by the
parties’ agreement. State v. Turner, 2019-Ohio-934 (7th Dist.).
{¶13} At the plea hearing, the court asked Appellant “do you understand this
recommendation of six to nine years is a recommendation? Do you understand this Court
is not required to follow that?” (Plea Hrg., p. 4.) Appellant responded in the affirmative.
In addition, the signed plea agreement states: “I however, understand that this is merely
a recommendation to the Court and is not binding upon the Court; the Judge may,
therefore, choose to accept, reject, or modify this recommendation.” (Plea Agreement,
p. 3.)
{¶14} While a plea agreement has been construed as a contractual document
between the state and the defendant, the law in Ohio is very clear that the trial court is
not a party to that agreement. The well-established law provides that a court is not bound
to impose a sentence in accordance with the parties’ agreement. This record is replete
with evidence that the court reached its sentence following a full consideration of the PSI
report, and strongly relied on that report in fashioning Appellant’s sentence. Accordingly,
Case No. 25 BE 0058
–6–
Appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit and is overruled. Additionally, the
sentence is well within the limits provided by law.
Conclusion
{¶15} Appellant argues solely that the trial court erred in failing to impose the joint
sentencing agreement reached by the parties. Because a trial court is not bound by a
jointly-recommended sentence, Appellant’s argument is without merit and the judgment
of the trial court is affirmed.
Robb, J. concurs.
Dickey, J. concurs.
Case No. 25 BE 0058
–7–
Case No. 25 BE 0058
[Cite as State v. Davis, 2026-Ohio-2725.]
For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s assignment of
error is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of
the Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs waived.
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This document constitutes a final judgment entry.