State v. McAusland


[Cite as State v. McAusland, 2022-Ohio-37.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 20CA011665 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE JAMES MCAUSLAND COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 93CR043678 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: January 10, 2022 CARR, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant James McAusland appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This Court affirms. I. {¶2} In 1993, McAusland, a non-U.S. citizen, was indicted in two separate cases: 93CR043678, involving a burglary charge, and 93CR044150, involving charges of gross sexual imposition and felonious sexual penetration. McAusland pleaded guilty in both cases in 1993 but later withdrew his pleas. He again pleaded guilty in 1994 to one count of burglary in case 93CR043678 and to one count of gross sexual imposition and one count of attempted felonious sexual penetration in case 93CR044150. He was sentenced accordingly. McAusland was terminated from probation in 1998. 2 {¶3} In September 2019, McAusland was arrested by officials from the United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement and informed that he was subject to deportation based upon his 1994 convictions. Removal proceedings were commenced and on December 18, 2019, McAusland was ordered removed from the United States. On January 16, 2020, McAusland initiated an appeal of that decision. {¶4} On January 21, 2020, McAusland filed a motion to withdraw his pleas based upon R.C. 2943.031 and Crim.R. 32.1; both case numbers were listed on the motion. McAusland’s motion was premised on the trial court’s failure to provide the advisements required by R.C. 2943.031 and his trial counsel’s failure to inform McAusland of the immigration consequences of his pleas. The State opposed the motion. The State did not dispute that McAusland was not a citizen, that the advisement pursuant to R.C. 2943.031(A) was required, or that the record of the plea hearing was destroyed pursuant to the clerk of courts’ retention policy. Nonetheless, the State argued that McAusland should not be allowed to withdraw his pleas. A single hearing was held on the motion. While no witnesses were called, argument was presented, and exhibits were admitted into evidence. In addition, it appears, based upon the trial court’s judgment entry, certain concessions may have been made by counsel at the hearing. Thereafter, the trial court issued a detailed entry denying McAusland’s motion. In the entry, the trial court cited to, and quoted from, the hearing transcript. {¶5} McAusland filed a single notice of appeal as to both case numbers. This Court concluded that the notice of appeal was sufficient to perfect an appeal from the trial court’s order only as to case 93CR043678. State v. McAusland, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 20CA011665 (Sept. 17, 2020). The appeal from case 93CR044150 was dismissed. Id. Accordingly, only case 3 93CR043678 is properly before us. McAusland has raised four assignments of error for our review. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals