State v. Tate
2016 Ohio 8309
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Melissa Tate, a child-care provider, pleaded guilty to one count of child endangerment (R.C. 2919.22(B)(2)), a third-degree felony, for repeatedly striking a two-year-old with a stick in October 2015.
- Surveillance video recorded the abuse; the child was observed bruised and without pants when the mother arrived.
- Tate pleaded guilty; at sentencing the trial court viewed the surveillance video, heard victim-family statements and argument, and imposed the maximum three-year prison term.
- Tate timely appealed, challenging (1) the validity of her guilty plea based on the indictment naming the victim as “John Doe,” (2) Blakely-related error from the court’s consideration of the video at sentencing, (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to the video, and (4) alleged failure to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
- The Eighth District affirmed: it held Tate waived nonjurisdictional indictment defects by pleading guilty; the trial court properly considered the underlying conduct (including video) at sentencing; no Blakely violation occurred; counsel was not ineffective on this ground; and the sentence was not contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08 standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment failure to name victim | State: indictment sufficiently identified victim by DOB; naming not required where identity not element | Tate: indictment invalid for using “John Doe” instead of naming victim, depriving due process | Waived by guilty plea; alternatively Ohio law does not require naming victim when identity isn’t an element |
| Trial court viewed surveillance video at sentencing (Blakely) | State: court may consider underlying facts at sentencing; video admissible for R.C. 2929.12 seriousness inquiry | Tate: video increased sentence based on facts not found by a jury, violating Blakely | No Blakely violation — sentence was within statutory range and court must consider underlying conduct under R.C. 2929.12 |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to video | State: counsel’s failure to object did not prejudice because court must consider conduct and video viewing was permissible | Tate: counsel ineffective for not objecting to Blakely violation | No ineffective assistance — an objection would not have prevented the court from considering the conduct; no prejudice shown |
| Failure to consider sentencing principles (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) | State: trial court expressly considered required statutes; appellate review limited by R.C. 2953.08 | Tate: court misweighed factors and imposed excessive maximum sentence | Sentence not contrary to law; appellate court cannot reweigh factors absent clear-and-convincing showing that record does not support sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (limits and standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127 (1991) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects in indictment)
- Stacy v. Van Coren, 18 Ohio St.2d 188 (1969) (same principle regarding waiver by guilty plea)