State v. Chaffin
2017 Ohio 4041
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In April 2016 a Madison County grand jury charged Brandon Chaffin (then 16 and on probation) with multiple felonies arising from a forced home entry during which the victim was assaulted, held at gunpoint, had her nose broken, and suffered loss of property and expenses. Several counts were later dismissed by plea agreement.
- On June 6, 2016 Chaffin pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary (R.C. 2911.11(A)(1)); other counts were dismissed. The trial court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation.
- At sentencing the court reviewed the PSI, noted the victim’s serious physical, psychological, and economic harm and Chaffin’s probation status at the time of the offense.
- The court sentenced Chaffin to seven years in prison, ordered $6,579.36 in restitution, assessed court costs, and notified him of mandatory five years of postrelease control.
- Chaffin appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) trial court failed to consider his ability to pay restitution under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5); (2) seven-year sentence was not supported by the record and violated R.C. 2953.08(G) and 2929.11(A); (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to consider Chaffin’s present and future ability to pay restitution under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) | State: Trial court complied; PSI and hearing show consideration. | Chaffin: Court imposed restitution without considering ability to pay. | Held for State — record (PSI, court statements, lack of defendant dispute) shows consideration; no error. |
| Whether the seven-year prison term for first-degree aggravated burglary was unsupported or contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G) and 2929.11(A) | State: Sentence within statutory range, court considered 2929.11/2929.12 factors and imposed postrelease control. | Chaffin: Sentence not supported by record; excessive. | Held for State — sentence within statutory range and supported by record; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to restitution order | State: No ineffective assistance because court did consider ability to pay. | Chaffin: Counsel ineffective for failing to object to court’s alleged failure to consider ability to pay. | Held for State — claim fails because record shows court considered ability to pay. |
| Whether court costs required separate ability-to-pay consideration | State: Court costs are statutorily mandated under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1). | Chaffin: (implicit) court costs should be assessed with ability-to-pay inquiry. | Held for State — ability-to-pay analysis not required for statutorily mandated court costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G) for felony sentences)
- State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221 (2016) (appellate review limited to clear-and-convincing showing that sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record)
- State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100 (2016) (affirming that a sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law when 2929.11/2929.12 were considered and sentence is within statutory range)