State v. Preciado
2015 Ohio 19
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1993 Rafael Preciado (a noncitizen not lawfully in the U.S.) pleaded guilty to an amended count of attempted forgery (first-degree misdemeanor) under a plea agreement; other counts were nolled. He received a suspended six-month jail sentence, six months probation, and 50 hours community service.
- No transcript of the 1993 plea hearing exists; court reporter notes are routinely destroyed.
- In September 2010 Preciado received notice of immigration removal proceedings; in March 2014 he filed a motion to vacate his 1993 plea alleging (1) the court failed to appoint an interpreter at the plea hearing, (2) neither the court nor counsel advised him of immigration consequences, and (3) counsel failed to advise him of consular rights.
- The trial court denied the motion as untimely and found Preciado failed to show a manifest injustice; it noted absence of a transcript prevented proof whether advisements or an interpreter were provided.
- On appeal the court reviewed denial of a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion for abuse of discretion and considered interpreter appointment, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (Strickland), and statutory advisement under R.C. 2943.031.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of plea-withdrawal violated due process because no interpreter was appointed | State: trial court did not abuse discretion; no evidence defendant could not understand English | Preciado: plea was not knowing/voluntary because no interpreter and counsel did not speak Spanish | Court: Overruled — defendant offered only bare assertions, no showing he could not understand; delay undermined credibility |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request interpreter, warn about deportation, or advise consular rights | State: defendant fails to show prejudice necessary under Strickland | Preciado: counsel’s failures caused manifest injustice; he would have gone to trial if properly advised | Court: Overruled — even assuming deficient performance, defendant did not show he would have prevailed at trial or suffered prejudice; untimeliness also fatal |
| Whether R.C. 2943.031 advisement omission requires vacatur of plea | State: omission presumed because no record, but withdrawal is discretionary and timeliness/staleness may deny relief | Preciado: lack of statutorily required advisement mandates vacatur | Court: Overruled — absence of advisement presumed, but trial court properly exercised discretion to deny relief due to excessive delay and prejudice to the State |
| Whether the motion was timely | State: motion filed >20 years after plea and ~3+ years after learning of removal — untimely and prejudicial | Preciado: claimed recent learning of immigration consequences (no affidavit support) | Court: Overruled — motion untimely; delay and stale evidence prejudiced the State; denial without hearing was not abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (defining manifest injustice standard)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (postsentence withdrawal allowed only in extraordinary cases; movant’s credibility is for trial court)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (abuse-of-discretion review for Crim.R. 32.1 denials)
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (undue delay undermines credibility of withdrawal motions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (timeliness and prejudice factors in motions to withdraw plea; state interest in finality)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (presumption of regularity in trial court proceedings)