State v. G.C., 2016 Ohio 717

Background

Defendant G.C., a Bangladeshi-born U.S. resident since 2007, was indicted on multiple counts for sexual offenses against a 14-year-old; he pleaded guilty to two first-degree rape counts; other counts were nolled by agreement.
At the March 11, 2015 plea colloquy the court personally questioned G.C.; he stated he could read/write English, had completed high school, and answered the court’s inquiries in English; the court accepted the guilty pleas under Crim.R. 11.
A presentence interview reported that G.C. later claimed he needed an interpreter and could not answer questions in English; probation noted the claim as a sudden development.
Defense counsel moved for approval of payment for a Bengali interpreter for sentencing; the court granted fees and the interpreter was sworn for the April 10, 2015 sentencing.
At sentencing G.C. and defense counsel represented that communication had been adequate at the plea; the court asked G.C. whether he remembered and understood the plea hearing, and G.C. (through interpreter or in English) said he did and that counsel had explained forms; the court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 17 years.
On appeal G.C. argued his guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because no interpreter was provided at the plea hearing; the trial court’s acceptance of the plea was challenged under plain-error review because he did not move to withdraw the plea below.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by accepting guilty pleas without appointing a Bengali interpreter	State: No error — record shows G.C. understood and responded in English; no request for interpreter; appointment discretionary absent evidence of inability to understand	G.C.: He is not English proficient; absence of an interpreter at plea made the plea unknowing and involuntary; statute and rule mandate interpreter when needed	Court: No plain or reversible error — transcript shows comprehension and no request; appointment was not mandated and trial court acted within discretion
Whether R.C. 2311.14 / Sup.R. 88 required appointment of an interpreter at plea absent a request	State: Those provisions require appointment only if record supports that party cannot readily understand/communicate in English	G.C.: Those rules mandated an interpreter because he is limited English proficient	Court: The rules/statute require appointment only when court concludes party is LEP or cannot readily understand; record did not support that finding at plea
Whether granting payment for an interpreter at sentencing implied plea was defective	State: Granting fees for sentencing interpreter is discretionary under R.C. 2929.024 and local rules and does not retroactively invalidate plea	G.C.: Trial court’s approval of interpreter fees shows it implicitly found interpreter was necessary at plea	Court: Fee approval reflected need for sentencing communication given indigence, not a finding that plea required an interpreter; no implied admission of plea invalidity
Whether plain error review is satisfied to reverse plea absent a contemporaneous Crim.R. 32.1 motion	State: Appellant waived the issue by not moving to withdraw; plain error not shown because no obvious error affecting substantial rights	G.C.: Failure to appoint interpreter at plea is obvious error affecting substantial rights	Court: No plain error — no obvious error in light of plea colloquy and other record evidence of comprehension

Key Cases Cited

Engle v. Ohio, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (presentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas should be freely and liberally granted; hearing required when raised)
Barnes v. State, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain error requires showing of obvious error affecting substantial rights)
Pina v. State, 49 Ohio App.2d 394 (Ohio Ct. App. 1975) (defendant entitled to proceedings in a language he can understand)