Login | April 27, 2024
Mexican national was properly informed of deportation possibility, court rules
JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 1, 2014
A man recently lost his appeal after the 10th District Court of Appeals found that a trial court properly advised him that his guilty plea could result in his deportation.
Baltazar Altunar was indicted on numerous counts of aggravated vehicular assault and operating a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol in May 2009.
After initially pleading not guilty to the charges, Altunar reached a plea agreement with the state.
He pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated vehicular assault and the trial court accepted those pleas, found him guilty and sentenced him accordingly.
Altunar did not appeal his conviction or sentence at that time.
Two years later, however, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
The motion detailed that Altunar is a Mexican national who was living in the United States at the time of his offense.
He claimed that the trial court did not advise him concerning the consequences his guilty plea could have on his status in this country.
The Ohio Revised Code mandates that a trial court must advise all foreign nationals of the possibility of deportation prior to accepting a guilty plea.
Altunar argued that the common pleas court failed to comply with that statute.
The trial court denied his motion and he appealed to the 10th District.
Upon review of the record of Altunar’s initial plea hearing, the three-judge appellate panel determined that he told the trial court through an interpreter that he was not a citizen of the United States.
The trial court then told him that by entering a guilty plea, “that you may suffer the consequence of deportation, exclusion from readmission to the United States or denial of naturalization or citizenship pursuant to our laws. So this can have a serious effect upon your status in this country.”
Altunar indicated that he understood that advisement.
“Additionally, the entry of guilty plea form that appellant signed before entering his plea also advised him that his conviction ‘may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States,’” Judge William Klatt wrote for the court.
The appellate judges held that a trial court is not required to recite the warning of the Ohio Revised Code verbatim, but it must warn the defendant of the three major potential consequences.
The trial court must also ascertain that a defendant is informed and subjectively understands the consequences set forth in the statute.
“Here, although quite similar, the trial court did not quote the statutory advisement verbatim. The trial court did, however, personally inform appellant of the three immigration-related consequences of his plea,” Judge Klatt stated.
The judges also noted that Altunar indicated he understood the warnings.
“Based on the totality of these circumstances, the trial court substantially complied with R.C. 2943.031(A). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea and we overrule his ... assignments of error,” Judge Klatt concluded.
Judges Julia Dorrian and Amy O’Grady joined Judge Klatt to form the majority.
The case is cited State v. Altunar, 2014-Ohio-2787.
Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved