State v. Warwick, 2018 Ohio 139

In December 2015 appellant Christy Warwick's 21-month-old son Sylas arrived at the hospital malnourished, with extensive head trauma, multiple bruises, burns, fractures, and later died; state charged appellant with child endangering (felony 3) and involuntary manslaughter (felony 1).
Appellant pled guilty to both counts in October 2016; the trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) and set sentencing for November 30, 2016.
At sentencing the state introduced expert testimony from Dr. Lori Vavul-Roediger (medical director, Dept. of Child Advocacy) and multiple videos (including three from appellant’s phone and one from foster parents) showing Sylas’ condition; the state urged maximum consecutive terms.
Defense counsel acknowledged appellant’s substance-abuse and mental-health diagnoses, disputed intentional abuse, and argued mitigation; appellant declined to speak.
The trial court reviewed the PSI and other materials, found the presumption of a prison term not overcome, and sentenced appellant to nine years on involuntary manslaughter concurrent with three years on child endangering.
Appellant appealed, raising (1) denial of access to the PSI in violation of R.C. 2951.03 and due process, and (2) prosecutorial misconduct/ex parte communication and lack of notice of evidence at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Warwick)	Held
Whether trial court violated R.C. 2951.03 / due process by not providing the PSI to defendant or counsel before sentencing	Court complied with PSI rules; PSI was prepared and considered at sentencing	Defendant says she and counsel were not given the PSI and thus were denied the right to read/rebut it	No violation: record contains no evidence defendant or counsel were denied access, and no contemporaneous objection was made
Whether prosecutor engaged in improper ex parte communication or failed to give notice of evidence/testimony at sentencing, depriving defendant of due process	State provided discovery, subpoenaed expert, and gave notice; videos and expert report were disclosed earlier; evidence was admissible at sentencing	Defendant alleges prosecutor submitted a letter ex parte to judge and failed to notify defense of video and expert testimony, prejudicing her ability to respond	No prejudicial ex parte communication shown; the only letter referenced was from defendant’s daughter; defendant had notice (discovery and subpoena), opportunity to cross-examine, and waived objection to surprise by failing to contemporaneously object

Youngstown v. Traylor, 123 Ohio St.3d 132 (Ohio 2009) (due-process requirement of notice and opportunity to be heard)
State v. Sanders, 188 Ohio App.3d 452 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (letters to judge by interested parties can be improper ex parte communications)
State v. Lyons, 101 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2004) (complaining party must show prejudice from ex parte communications)