[Cite as State v. Cedeno-Guerrero, 2019-Ohio-4580.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 108097 v. : SANTOS CEDENO-GUERRERO, : Defendant-Appellant. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 7, 2019 Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-17-617546-A Appearances: Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Fallon Radigan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Charles Ruiz-Bueno Co., L.P.A., and J. Charles Ruiz- Bueno, for appellant. KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: Defendant-appellant, Santos Cedeno-Guerrero, appeals his convictions. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. In June 2017, Cedeno-Guerrero was named in a four-count indictment charging him with one count of rape with a furthermore clause that the victim was less than ten years old; two counts of gross sexual imposition; and one count of kidnapping with a sexual motivation specification. On September 18, 2018, Cedeno-Guerrero pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition, and an amended count of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), which reduced the sentence from a life sentence to a definite sentence of three to eleven years. All other counts were nolled by the state. The trial court sentenced him to a total prison term of ten years — ten years for the rape offense and 36 months for the gross sexual imposition charge; the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Cedeno-Guerrero now appeals, raising two assignments of error. I. Interpreter Credentials In his first assignment of error, Cedeno-Guerrero contends that the trial court committed plain error by sentencing him without certifying on the record the credentials of the interpreter. First, where no objection is raised, it has been held that such failure results in a waiver to challenge the qualifications of the interpreter and adequacy of the translation. See, e.g., State v. Newcomb, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 03AP-404 and 03AP-961, 2004-Ohio-4099, ¶ 22. Notwithstanding any waiver argument, we review for plain error, which must have been an “obvious” defect in the proceedings that affected the defendant’s “substantial rights.” Crim.R. 52(B). We find no plain error. Cedeno-Guerrero’s primary language is Spanish; accordingly, a Spanish-speaking interpreter was utilized in the case. Prior to Cedeno-Guerrero entering into a plea of guilty pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court pursuant to Sup.R. 88, placed the interpreter under oath, inquired about her credentials, and found that she was properly certified. No objection was raised by counsel. Thereafter, Cedeno-Guerrero entered pleas of guilty pursuant to the plea agreement. The matter was continued for sentencing for the preparation of a presentence- investigation report. In November 2018, at sentencing, a Spanish-speaking interpreter was also utilized; however, the interpreter was not the same one that translated for Cedeno-Guerrero during his plea. Although the interpreter was placed under oath, the record does not reflect that the trial court inquired about the credentials. No objection was raised by the parties. During sentencing, the trial court noted that during Cedeno- Guerrero’s interview in preparation of the presentencing ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals