State v. Alvelo, 2017 Ohio 742

Background

Ernesto Alvelo was indicted on multiple counts (aggravated robbery reduced to robbery, theft, kidnapping, breaking and entering, two counts of having weapons while under disability, plus a separate drug-possession charge) arising from a September 2015 robbery of an 80‑year‑old man; surveillance stills and an anonymous tip identified Alvelo.
On December 1, 2015, Alvelo entered a package plea: guilty to one weapons‑under‑disability count, amended robbery (with a one‑year firearm spec), amended theft and breaking‑and‑entering (firearm specs deleted), and a separate drug possession plea; remaining counts/specs were nolled; restitution was agreed at $394.
The trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy; defense counsel confirmed a factual basis; the court accepted the pleas and ordered a PSI.
At the PSI interview and at sentencing Alvelo stated he believed he was “collecting a debt” and later disputed that a gun was involved; these statements occurred after the plea was accepted.
The court sentenced Alvelo to an aggregate seven years (one year on the firearm spec consecutive to six years on robbery), ordered restitution, costs, and postrelease control.
On appeal Alvelo argued (1) his guilty pleas were involuntary because mixed with claims of innocence and the court improperly counseled him that he had no defense, and (2) the trial court erred by denying his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw the pleas. The court affirmed convictions but vacated and remanded portions of the sentencing journal entry (sentences imposed in the entry but not orally and a restitution clerical discrepancy).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pleas were involuntary because mixed with protestations of innocence and required Alford‑style inquiry	Plea was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered per Crim.R. 11; no post‑plea statements negate that compliance	Alvelo argued his post‑plea statements that he was only "collecting a debt" and that no gun was involved created an Alford situation requiring the court to re‑inquire	Court held pleas were valid: defendant did not contemporaneously assert innocence at plea colloquy; later statements occurred after acceptance and did not trigger Alford inquiry; plea complied with Crim.R. 11
Whether trial court improperly counseled defendant that he had no defense, rendering plea involuntary	State: no improper advisement occurred; comments were at sentencing and did not affect plea voluntariness	Alvelo contended the court took a vested interest and told him he had no defense, undermining voluntariness	Court found no such advisory; exchange was at sentencing and could not have vitiated the earlier valid plea
Whether trial court erred by denying Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw plea	State: appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a postsentence motion filed after appeal initiation and defendant appealed only from the judgment of conviction	Alvelo argued the court abused its discretion in denying the motion	Court found the motion denial not properly before it on this appeal and did not reach the merits
Whether sentencing entry contained errors requiring resentencing or correction	State did not dispute clerical errors; court must correct sentences not orally pronounced and restitution mismatch	Alvelo noted sentencing entry imposed sentences on counts not orally pronounced and stated restitution $395 vs. $394 orally imposed	Court vacated sentences imposed in journal but not announced (breaking & entering and weapons‑under‑disability) and remanded for resentencing; ordered nunc pro tunc correction of restitution to $394

Key Cases Cited

Alford v. North Carolina, 400 U.S. 25 (defendant may plead guilty while asserting innocence but court must ensure factual basis)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Crim.R. 11 standard: plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Crim.R. 11 constitutional safeguards and plea requirements)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (presumption that defendant admits guilt when he pleads guilty without asserting innocence)