State v. Ortiz-Santiago
100 N.E.3d 1127
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2017Background
- Alejandro Ortiz-Santiago was indicted on multiple sexual-offense and related counts involving a child under 13; counsel was appointed and he initially pleaded not guilty.
- Trial was set for December 12, 2016; on the morning of trial Santiago said he wanted new counsel and to go to trial, but the court denied substitution as untimely.
- A jury was impaneled and sworn; on the second day, immediately before opening statements, Santiago accepted a plea to amended Count 1 (attempted rape) and Counts 11–12 (disseminating matter harmful to juveniles). Remaining counts were dismissed.
- Santiago filed a pro se presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he was pressured by counsel and did not understand the plea; counsel later joined to allow Santiago to be heard.
- After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to withdraw, sentenced Santiago to 8 years on Count 1 and consecutive 12-month terms on Counts 11–12 (total 10 years), and imposed postrelease control and Tier III registration.
- Santiago appealed, arguing the court erred in denying his motions for new counsel and to withdraw his plea, and in imposing consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a presentence motion to withdraw plea | Santiago: plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently entered; he was pressured, depressed, intimidated, and did not understand proceedings | State: plea was voluntarily entered after full Crim.R. 11 colloquy; motion was timely heard but unsupported by specifics or plausible defense | Court: Denial affirmed — plea was knowingly and voluntarily made after Crim.R. 11 hearing; no evidence counsel coerced plea; no plausible defense identified |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying request for new counsel | Santiago: counsel was unsupportive and pressured him to plead guilty; breakdown of relationship warranted substitution | State/Court: request was made on day of trial, allegations were general, counsel had investigated and advised objectively; no breakdown jeopardizing effective assistance | Court: Denial affirmed — request untimely, reasons were not specific, no showing of ineffective assistance |
| Whether consecutive sentences were imposed improperly | Santiago: findings for consecutive sentences were not meaningful; court failed to give reasons supporting statutory findings | State/Court: trial court made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing and in journal entry; reasons are not required under Bonnell beyond making findings | Court: Denial affirmed — court made and incorporated required statutory findings; reasons need not be elaborated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (standard for presentence plea-withdrawal motions and abuse-of-discretion review)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1977) (factors supporting denial of plea withdrawal when defendant had counsel, Crim.R. 11 hearing, and full motion hearing)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (consecutive-sentence statutory findings must be made at hearing and in entry)
- State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (1999) (standard for disqualification of appointed counsel; counsel need not be removed for candid advice)
- State v. Coleman, 37 Ohio St.3d 286 (1988) (requires a breakdown in attorney-client relationship to justify substitution)
- Chapple v. State, 135 Ariz. 281 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion as action clearly untenable or against reason and evidence)