State v. Garcia, 2020 Ohio 3232

Brandon S. Garcia was arrested after officers found marijuana, open alcohol containers, and firearms in his vehicle; charged with one weapons-related misdemeanor and three minor misdemeanors (possession of drugs, open container, drug paraphernalia).
At a multi-defendant arraignment the court gave a general immigration warning to the courtroom en masse but did not personally deliver the statutory R.C. 2943.031 advisement to Garcia before accepting his guilty pleas to the three minor misdemeanors.
Garcia entered guilty pleas to the three minor misdemeanors and was fined; he later filed a motion under R.C. 2943.031(D) to withdraw those pleas, asserting he is a Mexican citizen with pending DACA consideration and that the pleas could jeopardize his immigration status.
The trial court denied the motion, reasoning (1) some advisement occurred at arraignment and (2) R.C. 2943.031(A) does not require the immigration advisement for contemporaneous pleas to multiple minor misdemeanors because the statute applies only when the defendant previously has pleaded guilty to or been convicted of a minor misdemeanor.
The court of appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and abuse of discretion for the trial court's R.C. 2943.031(D) denial and affirmed, holding the advisement was not required under the statute for contemporaneous minor-misdemeanor pleas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2943.031(A) required a personal immigration advisement before accepting guilty pleas to multiple minor misdemeanors entered contemporaneously	Garcia: court circumvented the statute by accepting multiple pleas together and did not personally address him; advisement was required for each minor misdemeanor plea	State: statute requires the advisement only if the defendant previously has pleaded guilty to or been convicted of a minor misdemeanor; contemporaneous pleas do not trigger the duty	The court held the statute applies only when there was a prior minor-misdemeanor plea/conviction; contemporaneous pleas do not trigger R.C. 2943.031(A), so no advisement was required
Whether failing to provide the statutory advisement rendered Garcia's plea constitutionally invalid (knowing, voluntary)	Garcia: absence of required advisement violated his Fifth Amendment due-process/right-to-know rights and rendered his pleas involuntary	State: Garcia forfeited the constitutional challenge by not raising it below; the statutory interpretation forecloses the claim in any event	The court found the constitutional challenge forfeited (Awan) and in any event the statutory interpretation meant no advisement was required; assignment overruled

State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (2004) (discusses interaction of R.C. 2943.031 with Crim.R.11 and the substantive right to an immigration advisement)
State v. Kona, 148 Ohio St.3d 539 (2016) (addresses R.C. 2943.031 context and plea advisements)
State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106 (2004) (statutory-tense analysis regarding convictions or pleas occurring in the past)
State v. Waddell, 71 Ohio St.3d 630 (1995) (principle to apply statutes as written when unambiguous)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (constitutional challenges not raised at trial are forfeited on appeal)
State v. Noling, 153 Ohio St.3d 108 (2018) (court must give effect to words used in statute; do not insert or delete words)
Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398 (2016) (statutory ambiguity analysis guidance)