State v. Hamed
2017 Ohio 1071
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2008 a Greene County grand jury indicted Ihab B. Hamed on multiple drug- and RICO-related counts; he pleaded guilty in 2009 pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to seven years.
- At the plea hearing several counts were dismissed or amended under the agreement; Hamed is a non‑U.S. citizen who was advised during the colloquy that conviction could have immigration consequences.
- In 2016 Hamed filed a post‑sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and language barriers: he said counsel told him he "must plead guilty" and did not advise him of mandatory detention and imminent deportation; he also claimed limited English comprehension and lack of an interpreter.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the plea colloquy showed Hamed was advised of deportation risk, that counsel discussed immigration consequences, and that Hamed understood English sufficiently to enter a knowing, voluntary plea.
- Hamed appealed; the Second District reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the post‑sentence withdrawal motion and whether ineffective assistance or language barriers rendered the plea involuntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hamed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise on immigration consequences | Counsel satisfied duty; trial court complied with R.C. 2943.031 and the plea colloquy shows Hamed was warned | Counsel told Hamed he "must plead," did not discuss mandatory detention/deportation, so plea was involuntary | Court held no; record shows Hamed was advised and counsel discussed deportation risk; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether defendant was prejudiced such that he would not have pled but for counsel's errors | No reasonable probability of different outcome; Hamed affirmed pleas despite warnings | Would not have pled had he known of mandatory detention/immediate deportation | Court held no; defendant's statements at plea (including accepting deportation) contradict his later affidavit |
| Whether language barrier/absence of interpreter made plea unknowing | Plea colloquy shows understanding; only limited occasions where Hamed requested clarification and court explained | Lack of interpreter and limited English prevented intelligent, knowing plea | Court held no; transcript shows Hamed understood most questions and answers appropriately |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying post‑sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion | Discretion properly exercised based on transcript and credibility findings | Motion should have been granted to correct manifest injustice | Court held no abuse of discretion; transcript outweighed self‑serving affidavit |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (presumption of competence and deference to counsel's performance)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise noncitizen clients of clear immigration consequences)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for guilty‑plea ineffective assistance claims)
- Xie v. Ohio, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (prejudice shown when defendant would not have pled but for counsel's errors)
- Gondor v. Ohio, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 860 N.E.2d 77 (presumption that licensed counsel is competent)
- Calhoun v. Ohio, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (discussing burden on defendant alleging ineffective assistance)
- Francis v. Ohio, 104 Ohio St.3d 490, 820 N.E.2d 355 (standards for reviewing post‑plea motions to withdraw)