State v. Adames
2017 Ohio 587
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Humberto Adames was indicted on three counts of illegal use of WIC benefits and one count of receiving stolen property; he pleaded guilty to all four counts on November 24, 2015.
- Adames was represented by counsel and used a Spanish interpreter at the plea hearing; the written plea form acknowledged awareness of immigration consequences.
- The trial court advised Adames during the plea colloquy that conviction could result in deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization.
- Adames was sentenced to two years of community control and did not appeal the conviction or sentence.
- On April 22, 2016, Adames filed a post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to advise him that pleading to a felony would cause mandatory detention and imminent deportation.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the court’s colloquy warned him of immigration consequences and presuming regularity in the absence of a full transcript; Adames appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post‑sentence plea withdrawal is warranted for ineffective assistance of counsel (manifest injustice) | State: court’s plea colloquy and plea form properly advised defendant of immigration consequences; no manifest injustice | Adames: counsel failed to advise of mandatory detention and near‑immediate deportation; plea involuntary | Denied — no abuse of discretion; court’s colloquy and plea form negate prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure |
| Whether failure to advise of deportation by counsel alone is prejudicial when court informed defendant | State: defendant cannot show prejudice if court informed him during colloquy | Adames: counsel’s alleged affirmative misdirection induced the plea | Held for State — prior precedent bars prejudice claim where court gave immigration warning |
| Whether absence of full transcript requires presumption of regularity | State: transcript not provided; must presume proceedings regular | Adames: claims about what counsel said require transcript evidence | Held for State — presumption of regularity in absence of record |
| Whether Crim.R. 32.1 allows post‑sentence withdrawal for claimed counsel errors | State: extraordinary standard; denial appropriate here | Adames: ineffective assistance amounts to manifest injustice warranting withdrawal | Held for State — extraordinary standard not met; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Caraballo v. State, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 477 N.E.2d 627 (Ohio 1985) (appellate review of Crim.R. 32.1 is for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (Ohio 1988) (presumption that licensed attorney is competent)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (applying Strickland in Ohio)
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235, 773 N.E.2d 522 (Ohio 2002) (Crim.R. 32.1 motion focuses on plea and is not a collateral challenge)
- State v. Dalton, 153 Ohio App.3d 286, 2003-Ohio-3813 (Ohio App. 2003) (ineffective assistance may support manifest injustice under Crim.R. 32.1)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio 1980) (presumption of regularity where record is absent)