2021 Ohio 2217
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Charles Tyree was indicted on eight felony counts (six pandering obscenity involving a minor; two voyeurism) arising from images/videos of his then-10‑year‑old daughter. He pleaded guilty to two counts of pandering obscenity; remaining counts were dismissed.
- A presentence investigation report (PSI) contained Tyree’s statements admitting he installed a bedroom camera, claiming it captured his daughter in the shower, and asserting a theory that others planted or distributed the images; he also admitted membership in a child‑pornography chat group while claiming it was for law‑enforcement work.
- At sentencing Tyree reiterated that the camera was to protect himself and that his daughter allegedly consented to videotaping; he apologized but maintained explanations that shifted blame.
- The prosecutor, relying on chatroom material in the State’s possession, read statements from the chats describing sexual conduct with the child and Tyree’s grooming and distribution activities; defense objected as inadmissible hearsay and extraneous to the plea.
- The trial court overruled the objection, found Tyree lacked genuine remorse and had not accepted responsibility (citing his PSI and statements), imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 15–19 years, and Tyree appealed only the sentencing‑hearsay issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor’s sentencing‑room recitation of chatroom statements and other uncharged/unchallenged allegations was improper hearsay requiring remand | Such statements were admissible at sentencing; court may consider a broad range of information (including hearsay and allegations of uncharged conduct) and the prosecutor’s remarks were responsive to Tyree’s PSI and allocution | The prosecutor read inadmissible hearsay and unverified allegations outside the two pleaded counts, unfairly smearing Tyree; defense would have challenged them at trial, so they should not influence sentencing | Overruled. The court found the State’s statements permissible at sentencing and, in any event, the court’s conclusions (lack of remorse, no acceptance of responsibility) were supported by Tyree’s own PSI and allocution, so no remand was required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bowser, 186 Ohio App.3d 162 (2010) (trial court may rely on a broad range of information at sentencing, including hearsay and allegations of uncharged or dismissed conduct)