[Cite as State v. Palafox, 2021-Ohio-1550.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDUSKY COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. S-20-034 Appellee Trial Court No. 16 CR 106 v. Alfonso Vazquez Palafox DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: April 30, 2021 ***** Beth A. Tischler, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alexis M. Hotz, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Karin L. Coble, for appellant. ***** DUHART, J. {¶ 1} In this accelerated appeal, appellant, Alfonso Vazquez Palafox, appeals the December 13, 2019 judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to withdraw plea pursuant to R.C. 2943.031. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. {¶ 2} Appellant sets forth two assignments of error: I. The trial court violated Mr. Perez’s [sic] substantive right to receive statutory immigration warnings at his plea hearing, rendering his guilty plea void. II. The trial court committed plain error, violating Mr. Perez’s [sic] Due Process right to receive Crim.R. 11(C) notifications at his plea hearing, rendering his guilty plea void. Background Trial Court Proceedings {¶ 3} Appellant, who is not a citizen of the United States, was indicted by the Sandusky County Grand Jury on April 22, 2016, on one count of domestic violence, a fifth-degree felony, and one count of disrupting public services, a fourth-degree felony. He was subsequently arraigned and pled not guilty. {¶ 4} On September 16, 2016, a plea of guilty form was filed in the trial court which set forth that appellant desired to enter a guilty plea to the lesser included charge of attempted aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21, a second-degree misdemeanor. A change of plea and sentencing hearing was held that same day. Appellant was represented by counsel and an interpreter was present to assist appellant with translation from English to Spanish. {¶ 5} At the hearing, the court addressed appellant’s counsel, and counsel apprised the court, inter alia, that appellant was not a United States citizen and the effect of the 2. plea may have consequences of deportation. The court requested that the interpreter “verify or substantiate that [appellant] has gone through this plea of guilty.” The interpreter conferred with appellant, off of the record, and the interpreter stated, “Yes, Your Honor.” The court then addressed the victim and the interpreter, and asked, “does she understand what’s going on?” The interpreter conferred with victim, and the interpreter replied, “Yes, Your Honor.” {¶ 6} The state recommended that appellant be sentenced to 90 days in county jail, suspended, and two years of non-reporting probation, and be assessed for anger management and follow any treatment recommendation. The state also recommended that the original count of the indictment be dismissed. {¶ 7} The court found appellant had knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty to attempted aggravated menacing, a second-degree misdemeanor. The court adopted the state’s sentencing recommendation of 90 days in county jail, suspended. The court stated, “So I would need his signature on the plea.” The interpreter conferred …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals