State v. Bumu, 2017 Ohio 6901

Defendant Brima Bumu pleaded guilty in 2005 to marijuana possession; he was later jailed on other charges and his community control terminated. He did not appeal that conviction.
In 2016 Bumu moved to withdraw his 2005 guilty plea, asserting the trial court failed to give the R.C. 2943.031(A) immigration-admonition (or substantially comply), and that he would not have pled if he had understood deportation/work-authorization consequences.
At the 2016 hearing Bumu testified his English was limited, no translator was present, a friend had told him the conviction would be “no big deal,” and he did not recall the court’s warning.
The common pleas court concluded the trial court had substantially complied with R.C. 2943.031(A) and denied the motion to withdraw the plea.
On appeal the First District affirmed, holding the record lacked a certified, bound transcript of the 2005 plea hearing as required by App.R. 9(B) and 10(A), so the appellate court must presume the regularity of the lower-court proceedings and may not find an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court substantially complied with R.C. 2943.031(A) when accepting a guilty plea and thus whether defendant may withdraw the plea under R.C. 2943.031(D)	The State (plaintiff-appellee) argued the trial court substantially complied and the common pleas court properly exercised discretion in denying withdrawal	Bumu argued he did not subjectively understand immigration consequences because of limited English, lack of translator, and counsel’s reassurances; thus the court did not substantially comply and he would not have pled	Affirmed: court found no abuse of discretion because the appellant failed to include a certified plea-hearing transcript in the record on appeal, requiring a presumption of regularity and upholding the trial court’s discretionary ruling

State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490, 820 N.E.2d 355 (Ohio 2004) (R.C. 2943.031 creates a substantive right to an immigration admonition; substantial-compliance standard and defendant’s subjective understanding test)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (test for subjective understanding of plea rights)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio 1980) (appellant must provide transcript of proceedings necessary to resolve assigned errors)
State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 377 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio 1978) (photocopying a transcript and attaching to brief does not satisfy App.R. 9)
State v. Render, 43 Ohio St.2d 17, 330 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 1975) (absence of authenticated transcript requires affirmance or dismissal)
State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343, 986 N.E.2d 971 (Ohio 2013) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 520 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 1988) (appellant’s duty to ensure record includes necessary portions for review)