State v. Vialva
2017 Ohio 1279
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Johnson Vialva was indicted on 24 counts (rape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping) with child-victim and sexually-violent/specification allegations covering 2011–2012.
- In February 2016 Vialva pleaded guilty to amended counts: 10 rape, 10 gross sexual imposition, and 2 kidnapping counts under an agreed sentence of 20 years to life.
- The trial court conducted a plea hearing, reciting charges, maximum penalties, and the statutory immigration advisement that conviction "may" have deportation consequences; defense counsel stated he had discussed deportation consequences with Vialva.
- Vialva appealed, raising four assignments of error: (1) plea was invalid because court did not ensure he understood nature of charges; (2) court failed to advise him of right to testify; (3) court misadvised deportation consequences (used "may" instead of mandatory); and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for not correcting the court about deportation being mandatory.
- The appellate court reviewed compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) (strict for constitutional rights; substantial compliance for nonconstitutional advisements) and applied Strickland for the ineffective-assistance claim.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the plea knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and no prejudice shown from counsel’s performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Vialva) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court ensured Vialva understood the nature of the charges before accepting plea | Trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 by stating offenses, dates, penalties, and specifications | Court failed to explain elements or expressly ask if he understood charges | Court: Substantial compliance satisfied; no record of confusion; claim overruled |
| Whether the court had to advise Vialva of his right to testify before accepting plea | Advisement of right to remain silent and that silence cannot be used against him satisfied requirements | Court should have told him he had a right to testify and that pleading waives that right | Court: Not required under Crim.R.11; admonition about right to remain silent was sufficient; claim overruled |
| Whether the R.C. 2943.031(A) immigration advisement was defective because it used "may" when deportation was effectively mandatory | Statutory text requires advising that conviction "may" have immigration consequences; the court complied | Using "may" misled because certain convictions make deportation essentially mandatory | Court: Statutory advisement was proper; unlike Ayesta, record shows counsel discussed deportation and Vialva did not allege prejudice; claim overruled |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to correct the court’s use of "may" regarding deportation | Counsel did discuss deportation with defendant; no showing counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial | Counsel should have corrected court to note deportation was mandatory; failure was deficient | Court: No affidavit or evidence defendant would have acted differently; no prejudice shown under Strickland; claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (distinguishes strict Crim.R.11 requirements for constitutional rights from substantial compliance for nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (substantial compliance standard for plea advisements)
- State v. Carter, 60 Ohio St.2d 34 (1979) (totality-of-circumstances test for understanding of plea and waiver of rights)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen of deportation consequences to avoid ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (2000) (court may resolve ineffective-assistance claims on prejudice prong without deciding deficiency)