2022 Ohio 4326
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Hallan I. J. Sales (noncitizen, native Mam speaker) crashed his car into a parked police cruiser while intoxicated, causing the backseat passenger to suffer serious injuries requiring neurosurgery.
- Grand jury originally charged third-degree aggravated vehicular assault and OVI; Sales entered a negotiated plea (Jan. 5, 2022) to reduced fourth-degree vehicular assault (R.C. 2903.08(A)(2)(b)) and a misdemeanor OVI; plea colloquy conducted with a Spanish interpreter and court found plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; restitution estimated ≈ $450,000.
- Shortly after pleading, Sales secured new counsel and filed a pre-sentence motion to withdraw his plea, supported by affidavits from him and his mother alleging confusion, coercion by prior counsel, language barriers (need for Mam interpreter), failure to review discovery, and erroneous immigration advice.
- At the withdrawal hearing the court heard Sales (with a Mam interpreter), reviewed the plea recording, found many allegations not credible, found Crim.R. 11 compliance and competent counsel, and concluded the conviction (which requires recklessness) did not constitute a federal "crime of violence"/aggravated felony for deportation purposes.
- Trial court denied the motion to withdraw, sentenced Sales to community control and brief jail term, ordered restitution of $452,356.68, and Sales appealed raising (1) the court abused its discretion denying the pre-sentence withdrawal and (2) plea involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sales) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-sentence withdrawal of plea: whether denial was an abuse of discretion | Plea should be freely/liberally withdrawn; Sales was confused, coerced by counsel, and did not understand rights due to language barrier | Court properly considered Crim.R.11 compliance, credibility, and the nine-factor test; Sales' claims lacked credibility | Affirmed. No abuse of discretion; most withdrawal factors weighed against Sales |
| Whether plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel coerced him, failed to review discovery, misrepresented victim's condition, and gave erroneous immigration advice | Court found counsel competent; allegations not credible; even if deficient, no prejudice because charges would likely have been proved and original charges were more serious | Affirmed. No ineffective-assistance showing; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Immigration consequence: whether vehicular assault conviction is an aggravated felony/crime of violence causing deportation | Sales claimed the conviction would trigger deportation as an aggravated felony/crime of violence | Court and State argued vehicular assault under R.C. 2903.08(A)(2)(b) requires recklessness and thus post-Borden does not qualify as a "crime of violence" aggravated felony | Held: Offense requiring recklessness is not a federal "crime of violence" for aggravated-felony deportation purposes; counsel's immigration advice was not legally erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (setting standard that pre-sentence plea withdrawals should be freely and liberally granted)
- Hancock v. State, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)
- Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (holding that offenses punishable on a theory of recklessness are not "crimes of violence")
- United States v. Quinnones, 16 F.4th 414 (applying Borden reasoning that recklessness disqualifies a crime as a crime of violence)
- United States v. Rice, 36 F.4th 578 (same)
- United States v. Lopez-Castillo, 24 F.4th 1216 (same)
- United States v. Portela, 469 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. decision that reckless vehicular assault is not a crime of violence)