State v. Reyes, 2016 Ohio 2771

Defendant Jose Reyes, a Mexican citizen and U.S. permanent resident, entered no-contest pleas in Hamilton Municipal Court in 2000 (soliciting), 2003 (passing bad checks), and 2005 (resisting arrest).
No record exists showing the trial court gave the R.C. 2943.031(A) immigration-advisement at those plea hearings; R.C. 2943.031(E) creates a presumption the advisement was not given.
In 2015 Reyes was served with an immigration notice to appear based on those convictions and moved under R.C. 2943.031(D) to withdraw his no-contest pleas, claiming he was not warned that convictions could have immigration consequences.
At the hearing Reyes testified he was not admonished at the original plea hearings and said he would not have pleaded no contest if he had been advised; he also acknowledged learning of the immigration risk in 2013 from an attorney.
The trial court denied the motion as untimely, citing the long passage of time (pleas were 10–15 years old), Reyes’s 2013 knowledge of immigration consequences, Reyes’s subsequent contacts with courts, and concerns about stale evidence and finality.
Reyes appealed arguing timeliness is not a factor under R.C. 2943.031(D), that Francis bars denial based on timeliness alone, and that his motion was timely; the appeals court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Reyes)	Held
Whether timeliness is a proper factor when ruling on a R.C. 2943.031(D) motion	Timeliness is a relevant factor and may be dispositive depending on facts	Timeliness is not relevant under the statute	Timeliness is a relevant factor; trial court may consider it and, in some cases, deny solely on that basis
Whether a court may deny a R.C. 2943.031(D) motion based solely on untimeliness	Yes, depending on circumstances and prejudice to the state	No; per State v. Francis, timeliness alone cannot justify denial	Francis does not categorically forbid timeliness-based denials; timeliness alone can support denial under appropriate facts
Whether Reyes’s motion was untimely here	Reyes knew in 2013 of immigration consequences but waited ~2 years to file; pleas were 10–15 years old, so the delay was unreasonable and prejudicial	Reyes’s delay was justified or insufficient to deny relief	Motion was untimely; trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief given unexplained delay and prejudice concerns

State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (Ohio 2004) (timeliness is one relevant factor in R.C. 2943.031(D) determinations; whether untimeliness alone can deny relief depends on case-specific facts)