State v. Vasquez, 2019 Ohio 5406

Victim (K.V.) was sexually abused by her father, Francisco Vasquez, repeatedly between ages 6 and 12; abuse was revealed when mother found K.V.’s diary documenting the assaults and suicidal thoughts.
Vasquez was indicted on multiple counts (rape, sexual battery, gross sexual imposition); he pled guilty to five counts of sexual battery (amended to third-degree felonies); remaining counts were dismissed.
The trial court ordered a PSI, victim impact statements, and a psychosexual evaluation; counsel and the court stated at sentencing they had reviewed these materials.
The court sentenced Vasquez to five years on each count, ordered consecutively, for an aggregate 25-year prison term.
On appeal Vasquez argued the sentence (and the imposition of consecutive sentences) was erroneous; the Ninth District affirmed because the record on appeal omitted the PSI and other materials, requiring a presumption of regularity and preventing a clear-and-convincing review that the sentence was contrary to law.

Issue	Vasquez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sentencing to a 25-year aggregate term	Sentence is excessive/erroneous	Sentence within statutory range and based on considered materials	Affirmed; appeal overruled because record incomplete and presumption of regularity applies
Imposition of consecutive sentences	Consecutive terms improper	Court acted within discretion; considered PSI and evaluations	Affirmed for same reason: incomplete record prevents showing sentence contrary to law

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial courts have discretion to impose sentences within statutory range; no mandatory findings required for maximum, consecutive, or more-than-minimum sentences)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate court may modify/vacate sentence only if clear and convincing evidence record lacks statutory support or sentence is contrary to law)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition and standard for clear and convincing evidence)