[Cite as State v. Castillo-Rueles, 2019-Ohio-5063.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MAHONING COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. ADRIAN CASTILLO-RUELES, Defendant- Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 16 MA 0145 Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea BEFORE: Carol Ann Robb, Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, Judges. JUDGMENT: Affirmed. Atty. Edward A. Czopur, DeGenova & Yarwood, Ltd., 42 North Phelps St., Youngstown, Ohio 44503 for Defendant- Appellant and Atty. Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor, Atty. Ralph M. Rivera, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Plaintiff- Appellee. Dated: December 5, 2019 –2– PER CURIAM. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Adrian Castillo-Rueles appeals the decision of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court denying his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. For the reasons expressed below, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. Statement of the Case {¶2} On October 28, 2014, while in a detention facility in Mahoning County, Appellant attacked another inmate with a lock in a sock causing serious physical harm to the victim. Appellant was thereafter indicted for two counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)(D) and R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)(D), both second-degree felonies and one count of attempted murder in violation of 2903.02(A)(D) and 2923.02(A), a first- degree felony. 2/5/15 Indictment. {¶3} Following plea negotiations, Appellant pled guilty to felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)(D). The remaining count of felonious assault and the attempted murder count were dismissed. The parties agreed to jointly recommend a four- year sentence for the felonious assault conviction and for that sentence to be served concurrently with a federal drug trafficking sentence that he was currently serving. The trial court accepted the guilty plea after advising Appellant of the constitutional and nonconstitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. {¶4} During the plea colloquy, the trial court was advised that Appellant is not a U.S. citizen, is of Mexican descent, and does not speak a lot of English. The trial court was also advised that Appellant had an immigration holder on him and was awaiting deportation after completion of the sentence. {¶5} The trial court proceeded immediately to sentencing and followed the joint recommendation of a four-year sentence to be served concurrently with the federal sentence. 7/14/15 J.E. {¶6} Less than a month after the sentence was imposed, Appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant asserted trial counsel told him he would Case No. 16 MA 0145 –3– receive a six-month sentence to run concurrent with his federal sentence. He also asserted that he understands very little English, he did not understand the entire proceedings, and he was coached on what to say. 8/8/16 Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. {¶7} The trial court ordered the transcript of the plea hearing, and after reviewing the transcript, overruled the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. 8/12/16 J.E. It reasoned: The Court ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals