State v. Rai
2017 Ohio 8655
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Suk B. Rai, a Nepalese-speaking lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in Stow Municipal Court to a domestic violence misdemeanor after proceedings in March 2015.
- At the plea hearing a Nepalese interpreter was present; Rai signed an "Acknowledgment and Waiver of Rights" form (initialing the non‑citizen advisement) and waived counsel before pleading guilty.
- The plea form and a deleted digital recording were the only contemporaneous records of what advisements were given; the court recording was not preserved.
- In February 2017 Rai moved to withdraw his guilty plea under R.C. 2943.031 and Crim.R. 32.1, alleging the interpreter was ineffective, he did not understand the proceedings or immigration consequences, and deportation was imminent.
- The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, relying on the signed waiver form and finding Rai understood and waived his rights.
- On appeal the Ninth District reversed, holding the absence of a record triggered the statutory presumption that Rai did not receive the R.C. 2943.031 advisement and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court complied with R.C. 2943.031(A) by advising non‑citizen defendant of immigration consequences | Rai: court failed to give the verbatim statutory warning in his native language and interpreter was ineffective, so he did not understand consequences | State: trial court informed Rai and form initials show advisement; Rai waived rights | Court: Reversed — absent preserved record, statutory presumption applies that advisement was not given; written form alone insufficient to rebut presumption |
| Whether written waiver/form rebuts presumption when audio/recording is missing | Rai: form and initials do not prove he received the advisement in court or in his language | State: signed form demonstrates advisement and waiver | Court: Written advisement form alone is insufficient to overcome presumption under R.C. 2943.031(E) |
| Whether appellate record deficiencies require presumption of regularity or application of R.C. 2943.031(E) presumption | Rai: deletion of recording triggers statutory presumption he did not receive the advisement | State: appellant bears burden to provide record under App.R. 9 | Court: R.C. 2943.031(E) controls here; in absence of record, defendant is presumed not to have received the advisement |
| Whether interpreter competency and waiver voluntariness require further factfinding | Rai: interpreter ineffective; plea not voluntary, waiver of counsel not knowing | State: trial court found Rai understood and waived counsel | Court: Because record is incomplete, cannot determine interpreter role or voluntariness; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must give verbatim R.C. 2943.031(A) warning; appellate courts assess whether trial court substantially complied and R.C. 2943.031(D) relief applies when advisement was not given)