State v. Chaney

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 248

Syllabus

Motion for continuance abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Chaney's motion for continuance. Chaney had ample time to retain new counsel, assess the plea agreement, strategize, and obtain potential mitigation evidence before and after his plea hearing. A continuance would have inconvenienced the defendants, victims, family members, and counsel, who were all present for the sentencing hearing, as well as the court, which was prepared to sentence Chaney and his codefendant. Moreover, the trial court had information regarding the mitigation evidence Chaney sought to obtain through his presentence-investigation report. Additional information would have little to no impact on Chaney's plea deal or sentence, which was within an agreed-upon sentencing range, in light of the seriousness of the crimes he committed. Finally, Chaney chose to be represented by two attorneys at his sentencing hearing and his right to be represented by counsel of his choice was not violated.