State v. Xi

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 3069

Syllabus

Sentencing discretion; due-process; plain error; unsubstantiated allegations; psychological harm; victim-impact statements; seriousness of the offense; R.C. 2929.12(B)(2); emotional trauma; sentencing hearing; trial court findings; appellate review; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); relationship with the victim; credibility of evidence; statutory sentencing factors; felony sentencing; mitigating and aggravating factors; judicial discretion; record support; consecutive sentencings. The trial court did not violate the defendant's due-process rights by considering the victim's statements regarding psychological harm and fear for her family's safety during sentencing. Although the victim referenced alleged threats from the defendant's wife or associates, the trial court did not make an evidentiary finding by attributing those threats to the defendant. Instead, the court permissibly considered the ongoing psychological impact of the offenses under R.C. 2929.12(B)(2). Because the record supports the trial court's findings and the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the appellate court affirmed. (R.C. 2929.12(B)(2); R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).) Consecutive sentences upheld.