State v. Bravo
2017 Ohio 272
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rosa Bravo (formerly Cardenas), an Ecuadorian national, pleaded guilty in 2004 (with a Spanish interpreter) to fifth-degree felonies for possessing criminal tools and forgery related to a fraudulent Social Security card; one tampering count was dismissed.
- She received two years community control beginning June 29, 2004; entry was served on INS; community control terminated April 7, 2006.
- In May 2015 Bravo moved to withdraw her guilty plea and vacate her conviction, arguing the plea was not knowing/voluntary because defense counsel failed to advise her of immigration consequences and the court failed to give/ensure understanding of the R.C. 2943.031 advisement.
- The trial court denied the motion without analysis; Bravo appealed, raising five assignments of error concerning ineffective assistance (immigration advice), failure to give verbatim statutory advisement, failure to hold a hearing on the motion, interpreter credentialing/oath, and post-release control advisement.
- The Ninth District affirmed: it rejected Bravo’s Padilla-based ineffective-assistance claim as her conviction was final before Padilla, found the court substantially complied with R.C. 2943.031, held no hearing was required, deemed interpreter-qualification claims barred by res judicata, and found post-release-control inapplicable to community control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bravo) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for failing to advise on immigration consequences | Counsel failed to advise that plea could cause deportation; plea therefore involuntary | Padilla does not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla; Bravo alleged no other deficient conduct | Denied — Chaidez bars Padilla retroactivity; Bravo failed to show deficient performance or prejudice |
| 2. Statutory R.C. 2943.031 advisement not given verbatim / not understood | Court failed to give the exact statutory warning or ensure Bravo’s understanding | Court gave substantially similar warning through interpreter and confirmed Bravo’s understanding | Denied — substantial compliance with R.C. 2943.031; no abuse of discretion |
| 3. Denial of hearing on post‑sentence plea withdrawal | Court should have held evidentiary hearing on plea-withdrawal and ineffective-assistance claims | Record (plea transcript and affidavit) allowed adjudication without hearing; no entitlement to hearing where record shows no relief | Denied — no hearing required; record sufficient and no manifest injustice shown |
| 4. Interpreter not sworn, credentials not verified | Interpreter was not sworn or adequately vetted; due process violation | Issues could/should have been raised on direct appeal; barred by res judicata | Denied — claims precluded by res judicata (but court noted the trial court’s handling was troubling) |
| 5. Failure to advise re: post‑release control | Judge omitted warning that post‑release control up to three years could apply | Post-release control warnings apply to prison sentences, not community control | Denied — issue inapplicable because defendant received community control, not prison |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (attorney must advise noncitizen client when deportation consequences are clear)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule and is not retroactive to convictions already final)
- Francis v. Franklin, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (2004) (trial courts must give R.C. 2943.031 warning; substantial-compliance standard governs non-verbatim warnings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (applying Strickland to guilty pleas; defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty but for counsel’s errors)
- Mezo v. Holder, 615 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2010) (addressing equitable tolling in immigration proceedings; court explained it is not applicable to criminal plea context)