State v. Cedeno-Guerrero
2019 Ohio 4580
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Indicted June 2017 for rape (with victim under ten), two counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI), and kidnapping with sexual motivation specification. State nolled remaining counts after plea.
- On September 18, 2018, Cedeno-Guerrero pleaded guilty to one count of GSI and an amended rape count (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)), reducing exposure from a life term to a definite 3–11 year range.
- At plea hearing a Spanish interpreter was sworn and the court certified her credentials on the record; no objection was made.
- A different Spanish interpreter translated at the November 2018 sentencing hearing; the record does not show the court inquired into that interpreter’s credentials.
- During presentence interview (through an interpreter) defendant said he did not commit the acts and pleaded only to "get this case over with;" at sentencing the court asked if he wished to withdraw the plea and he confirmed he did not.
- The court sentenced defendant to ten years for rape and 36 months for GSI to run concurrently. Defendant appealed raising (1) plain-error challenge to the interpreter credential procedure at sentencing, and (2) that the sentence was excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cedeno-Guerrero) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court committed plain error by not certifying interpreter credentials at sentencing | Any error was waived; no prejudice shown; interpreter was sworn and previously certified at plea; sentencing is procedurally distinct and adversarial concerns are limited | Lack of certification impeded his ability to withdraw plea and understand the sentence | No plain error; defendant failed to show prejudice or that interpreter was unqualified; plea withdrawal was affirmatively declined at sentencing |
| Whether ten-year sentence was excessive/contrary to law | Sentence within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and declined consecutive terms after analysis | Defendant argued lack of criminal record and deportation exposure warranted a minimum sanction | Sentence affirmed as within statutory range and supported by record; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaspareno, 61 N.E.3d 550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (interpreting Sup.R. 88 interpreter hierarchy and qualification practice)
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentencing under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Wilson, 951 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 2011) (trial court not required to recite specific language when considering R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
- State v. Barrie, 70 N.E.3d 1092 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (distinguishing trial-phase adversarial concerns from sentencing proceedings)