[Cite as State v. Valois-Perez, 2020-Ohio-3755.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDUSKY COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals Nos. S-19-005 S-19-023 Appellee Trial Court No. 16CR1267 v. Mauricio Edmundo Valois-Perez DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: July 17, 2020 ***** Beth A. Tischler, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Karin L. Coble, for appellant. ***** PIETRYKOWSKI, J. {¶ 1} This consolidated appeal is before the court following the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas denying appellant Mauricio Valois-Perez’s motion to withdraw his post-sentence guilty plea. Because we find no prejudicial error, we affirm. {¶ 2} On December 12, 2016, appellant was indicted for the December 11, 2016 murder of his wife. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, appellant entered a guilty plea to murder with a firearm specification. The July 25, 2017 plea form signed by appellant provides in relevant part: My attorney and the judge have advised me and I understand that: *** I am/am not a United States citizen. If you are not a citizen of the United States you are hereby advised that conviction of the offense to which you are pleading guilty (or no contest, when applicable) may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States. A check mark was placed in front of the paragraph and the “am not” was underlined. {¶ 3} On July 25, 2017, appellant was sentenced to a mandatory sentence of 18 years. A nunc pro tunc entry was journalized on September 19, 2017, adding the language “to life” to appellant’s 18-year sentence. No direct appeal was taken. {¶ 4} On November 19, 2018, appellant, pro se, filed a motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. Appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to advise him on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter and that there was enough evidence in the case to demonstrate serious provocation by the victim. In appellant’s attached affidavit he stated: 2. 6. All these consistent accusations on the night of the incident caused me to relive her infidelity and the rumors going around that our second child might not be my child. 7. The night of the incident she did admit her sexual infidelity but she claimed that she had been forced and that she didn’t want to. This made me so mad I called her a “f***ing whore.” Her admission made me believe that perhaps our second child might not be mine after all. {¶ 5} The state countered that the incident was not one where the victim was the aggressor; that during the course of the evening the victim, suspecting appellant’s infidelity, kept texting him to see when he was coming home. According to the state, once home appellant, in an attempt to deflect the accusations, brought up the victim’s alleged affair from the prior year. The victim admitted she cheated on appellant but stated ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals