State v. Chavez, 2017 Ohio 8417

Two-month-old infant suffered traumatic brain injury, retinal hemorrhages, seizures, a fractured femur, and a subdural hematoma; required at least one craniotomy.
Saul C. Chavez, Sr. was indicted on two counts of endangering children; he pled guilty to one count (R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)) pursuant to a plea agreement; the other count was dismissed.
Chavez moved to suppress statements; motion was overruled. No disposition agreement; sentencing proceeded after guilty plea.
At sentencing defense counsel told the court the victim’s mother (present in courtroom) was satisfied with the child’s progress; defense submitted updated medical records indicating the child was within normal developmental range, though records lacked a prognosis.
The trial court reviewed the records, found the physical harm serious and the relationship facilitated the offense, rejected community control as demeaning, and imposed a seven-year prison term (within the statutory range for a second-degree felony).
Chavez appealed, arguing the court denied the victim’s mother an opportunity to make a victim impact statement and failed to properly consider medical records, resulting in an improper sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not allowing the victim’s mother to speak before sentencing under R.C. 2930.14	State: court complied with law; no request to speak was made and victim impact rules do not provide relief to defendant	Chavez: mother wanted to address court about child’s condition and prognosis and was not given opportunity, affecting sentencing	No reversible error — record shows no request to speak; even if she wanted to, failure to permit a victim impact statement does not grant relief to defendant
Whether the trial court failed to consider victim’s medical records or gave them improper weight when imposing sentence	State: court reviewed medical records and considered them along with statutory factors	Chavez: court relied on incomplete information and failed to permit clarification from victim’s mother, so sentencing factors were misweighed	Sentence affirmed — court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, noted seriousness and relationship-facilitated offense, and imposed a lawful sentence within statutory range

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (discussion of appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when sentencing)
State v. Ridenour, 713 N.E.2d 1140 (victim impact statement purpose and that its exclusion does not afford defendant relief)