State v. Gomez
2017 Ohio 9072
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rolando Pena Gomez, a Spanish-only speaker using an interpreter, pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree trafficking in cocaine, one count of first-degree trafficking in heroin, one count of first-degree possession of heroin, and a vehicle forfeiture specification.
- Plea taken October 6, 2016; at plea hearing the court explained constitutional and nonconstitutional rights and potential sentence; defendant repeatedly stated he understood.
- Initial sentencing set December 1, 2016; sentencing continued to December 8, 2016 after PSI was updated to reflect prior misdemeanor and felony convictions.
- At the resumed sentencing hearing Gomez gave a allocution about his background and addiction; the court imposed concurrent eight-year terms (total eight years).
- Immediately after sentence, Gomez stated he thought he would not receive eight years and claimed he had not sold heroin; he did not move to withdraw his plea nor did counsel request a recess.
- Gomez appealed, arguing (1) his plea was not knowing/voluntary because the court should have inquired or recessed after his post-sentence comments, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a recess or withdrawal of plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 | State: court complied with Crim.R. 11; defendant repeatedly acknowledged understanding rights and plea terms | Gomez: post-sentence statement showed misunderstanding of plea terms and innocence of heroin trafficking, so plea was not valid | Court: plea was valid; court strictly/substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 and record shows understanding; no withdrawal required |
| Whether sentencing was contrary to law (clear and convincing standard) | State: sentence within the recommended range and supported by record and factors | Gomez: sentence surprised him and therefore is contrary to law because plea infirm | Court: sentence not contrary to law; supported by PSI, prior history, and seized quantities |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting recess or plea withdrawal | State: counsel reasonably advocated for lower sentence and later moved for reconsideration; no basis to challenge plea | Gomez: counsel should have acted when Gomez expressed confusion/innocence at sentencing | Court: counsel’s performance not deficient; no prejudice shown under Strickland; claim fails |
| Whether post-sentencing comments required trial court to halt proceedings or further inquire | State: no per se requirement; comments reflected disagreement with sentence, not confusion about plea | Gomez: court should have recessed to allow consultation and possible plea withdrawal | Court: no requirement to recess; comments did not show confusion or lack of understanding, only disagreement with sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) strict compliance for constitutional rights; prejudice requirement for nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional plea advisements)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1969) (plea colloquy procedures)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (ineffectiveness challenges focus on fundamental fairness)