State v. Abdugheneima, 2017 Ohio 8423

Appellant Hamdan M. Abdugheneima was served with an order of protection on Aug. 8, 2016 prohibiting contact with K.D.; he was charged with violating it by sending threatening texts on Aug. 17 and Aug. 21, 2016.
At trial K.D. testified she received threats; officers viewed her phone and a detective linked the sending number to Abdugheneima.
Abdugheneima testified in English, denied contacting K.D., and offered a defense that a "fake caller ID" app or video could have made messages appear from his number.
The trial court convicted him of two counts of violating the protection order, imposed 180 days (90 suspended, 90 on GPS), probation, anger management, costs, and a no-contact order.
On appeal he raised: (1) trial court’s failure to appoint an Arabic interpreter at trial (though one was provided at sentencing); (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to request an interpreter; and (3) insufficiency/manifest-weight challenge tied to his alleged language barrier and credibility.
The appellate court reviewed the transcript, concluded appellant could meaningfully participate in English, found the conviction supported by the evidence, and affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Abdugheneima's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not appointing a foreign-language interpreter at trial	Interpreter not required because defendant testified in English and the court/parties understood him; misunderstandings were minor	Appellant lacked sufficient English proficiency (35 noted “unintelligible” instances, nonresponsive answers, confusion) so an interpreter was required	No error: court did not abuse discretion; defendant could meaningfully participate in English
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting an interpreter	Counsel not ineffective because defendant’s English was adequate; no reasonable probability of different outcome	Counsel should have requested interpreter; failure prejudiced defense	No ineffective assistance: counsel’s performance not deficient given defendant’s functional English; no prejudice shown
Whether the evidence was insufficient or the verdict against manifest weight	State presented K.D.’s testimony and phone records linking messages to defendant; credibility for factfinder	Defendant argues confusion/misstatements due to English difficulties undermined prosecution evidence	Conviction supported: sufficient evidence and not against manifest weight; trial court found defendant not credible

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2008) (reaffirming Strickland standard in Ohio)
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio 1997) (sufficiency test: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Sanders, 94 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio 2002) (definition of reasonable probability under Strickland)
State v. Saah, 67 Ohio App.3d 86 (Ohio Ct. App.) (no interpreter required where defendant had functional English and misunderstandings could be remedied by rephrasing)