[Cite as State v. Beyduk , 2018-Ohio-1690.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2017-10-144 Plaintiff-Appellee, : OPINION : 4/30/2018 -vs- : ANDREY P. BEYDUK, : Defendant-Appellant. : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT Case No. 2006CRB00086 David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, 520 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for plaintiff-appellee Engel & Martin, LLC, Mary K. Martin, 4660 Duke Drive, Suite 101, Mason, Ohio 45040, for defendant-appellant M. POWELL, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Andrey Beyduk, appeals a decision of the Warren County Court denying his motion for a new trial. {¶ 2} Appellant, a Russian citizen and United States legal permanent resident, was convicted of domestic violence in 2006 following a bench trial. Ten years later, upon applying to become a United States citizen, appellant was informed by the United States Department of Homeland Security that he would be deported due to his domestic violence Warren CA2017-10-144 conviction. Consequently, in April 2017, appellant filed a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial ("motion for leave") pursuant to Crim.R. 33. Appellant argued that multiple prejudicial errors occurred at trial, to wit, (1) the trial court did not advise him of his right to have an interpreter and failed to provide him with an interpreter; (2) the trial court allowed appellant's wife, the alleged victim, to be an interpreter; (3) the trial court allowed appellant to waive his right to counsel without warning him that a conviction could have adverse immigration consequences; and (4) the state's case was based upon hearsay. {¶ 3} A hearing on the motion for leave was held on May 23, 2017. During the hearing, the state informed the trial court that appellant's motion involved a two-step process, requiring the trial court to first determine whether to grant the motion for leave before a motion for a new trial could be filed. Upon inquiry from the trial court, defense counsel advised the court that the motion for a new trial would be based upon the same grounds and documentation as those of the motion for leave. The trial court then stated, Then I'm going to grant the initial motion for leave to file for the new trial and I will take under advisement the motion for new trial, based on the documents that have been filed by both [defense counsel] and the State. {¶ 4} Subsequently, defense counsel orally moved for a new trial. The trial court then stated that the matter would be taken under advisement. The trial court did not journalize an entry reflecting that the motion for leave was granted. However, later that day, the trial court issued a judgment entry that simply stated, "Motion Overruled." {¶ 5} On June 12, 2017, appellant filed a motion and supporting memorandum, asking the trial court "to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law for its decision of May 23, 2017 to overrule his motion for leave to file application ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals