State v. Saracco-Rios
2016 Ohio 7192
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Aldo Saul Saracco-Rios, a 24‑year‑old Mexican citizen and recent law graduate, was indicted for possession of drugs (first‑degree felony) after attempting to sell 124 grams of heroin to an undercover officer.
- He pleaded guilty to one count of possession of drugs and the court referred the matter for a presentence investigation (PSI).
- At sentencing the court imposed the mandatory nine‑year prison term, a mandatory $10,000 minimum fine, a five‑year postrelease control term, and a five‑year driver’s license suspension.
- Defendant moved for reconsideration of sentence, which the trial court denied; he then appealed.
- The record shows the PSI reported defendant ran a lawn care/painting business earning $2,000–$3,000 per month, sent money to family in Mexico, had no prior convictions, and admitted drug use and a willingness to sell for profit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file an indigency affidavit or otherwise seek waiver of the mandatory $10,000 fine | State: Trial court properly imposed mandatory fine under statute; record shows court considered ability to pay. | Saracco‑Rios: Counsel should have called court’s attention to inability to pay / filed affidavit of indigency. | Court: No ineffective assistance. PSI and sentencing entry show the court considered present and future ability to pay; defendant did not show a reasonable probability the court would have found him indigent. |
| Whether the nine‑year mandatory sentence was an abuse of discretion / contrary to law | State: Sentence complied with statutory requirements, considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, within statutory range. | Saracco‑Rios: As a first‑time, nonviolent offender, nine years was excessive and an abuse of discretion. | Court: Sentence upheld. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard, sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law and record supports seriousness (large quantity heroin, organized sale) and other sentencing factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (Ohio 1998) (burden on offender to demonstrate indigency and inability to pay mandatory fines)
- State v. Adkins, 144 Ohio App.3d 633 (12th Dist. 2001) (record must contain some evidence that court considered offender's ability to pay)